If there was a handheld contraption with a trigger that could fire a small nuclear projectile that could destroy an entire city would the right to have one be protected by the second amendment just because it fits the general definition of a gun?
It's not a game. The founders could not have foreseen the types of weapons that we quite arbitrarily consider to be 'guns' as described in the constitution, therefore if anyone is playing games it is the people who call themselves 'originalists' when they pretend that it is that philosophy that informs their judicial opinions.
If there was a handheld contraption with a trigger that could fire a small nuclear projectile that could destroy an entire city would the right to have one be protected by the second amendment just because it fits the general definition of a gun?