Understanding What "Originalist" Means

draft

Dear REDACTED,

As you know there are many elements of the current political situations(s) that I dont understand or perhaps incompletely appreciate. Certainly I am not at all concerned whether the debate over an originalist interpretation of the constitution is political or not, of course it is. Not even a stupid moron could doubt that. My problem (well one of them) is that I dont understand what the originalist position actually is. I want to try to understand the originalist position better and nothing I have read has helped me much. So lets take the 2nd amendment, which is apparently more important than issues of racism or the right to vote among our fellow citizens.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1. What is a well regulated militia? Whatever it is, I am pretty sure that it never was intended to be a bunch of yahoos forming vigilante squads to shoot at whoever they want whenever they want because "they need killin". To the best of my knowledge, militia's were self generating (unlike for example a regiment which usually had a designated officer responsible for raising a body of troops), but even so I am pretty sure that they were sanctioned (or not sanctioned) by official authority. Yes, no, maybe? Therefore outside of a "well regulated whatever" why does this amendment even apply?

2. By "state" here, I presume they mean the individual states & commonwealths, e.g. 13 of them. Not the federal govt, or did they mean the federal govt?

3. I am not sure what "arms" means here in an originalist sense. Are we talking about unrifled muskets, presumably flint locks or similar technology, muzzle loaded? How about artillery, which in this case would mean muzzle loaded single piece unrifled cannon firing shot or metal balls, those are certainly arms. It would not be an originalist position to say this refers to rifled, semi automatic, weapons which are wildly different in capability to a flintlock. If we are interpreting the constitution to refer to "modern personal firearms" then that would have to include antitank and antiair weapons as those are every bit as much a personal kinetic weapon as updated to our times. Certainly a modern semi automatic hand gun would not be considered to fall under this amendment in any originalist sense as the handgun as a useful technology pretty much did not exist at that time.

So which is it, original or interpreted?