Here’s a read from a fairly strong libertarian gun-nut.
The 2nd was written to ensure the ability of a free people to form effective militias against a tyrannical government. Early on this was viewed as the right to form self-defense bodies with small arms, not fully equipped armies that could invade and occupy a state. In that light–and the fact that land power was directly measured by the size of the force you could field since the arms carried by a private citizen were near equal (in some cases superior) to the arms professional military carried–the right to keep and bear arms was straight forward. Until the turn of the last century that held well enough, but subsequent developments made true armies far more deadly than any militia.
Case law developed–based on a reasonable view that public safety trumped a raw determination of the 2nd–to limit access to the more lethal weapons. Said work was generally accepted as within the context of The Constitution, with which I and most other gun-nuts agree.
But what few of us really seem to speak to is two fold–the danger of a non-representative government arising here (virtually nil) and an assumed right back then that every person had a right to self-defense.
So I do think the stated purpose of the 2nd–preventing a tyranny–has been proved unnecessary with the rule of law our Nation has established. What I don’t think is well addressed is your right to the MEANS of self-defense; a right I would consider as critical as any other.
Which brings me to the last point: self-defense is well accomplished by simple firearms–a shotgun or handgun. And yes, they do need to be capable of carrying sufficient multiple rounds for effectiveness. How many is that? The answer is fuzzy, though my most common concealed carry is a 5-shot snubbie. But I’m not your average shot–I can hit a orange at 25 yards with a revolver firing double action. Most people can’t do that.
So, debate away on the mag capacity.