> When the US Constitution was written there was hardly even an industry; most firearms were craft built.

You mean at the dawn of the industrial revolution, before which, you know, everything was craft built?

Yes that's what I mean.

We live in the 21st century, not the 18th century. If liberty requires that access to guns be a universal and inalienable right, then the capacity to manufacture and provide guns must scale with the population, and a small arms manufacturing infrastructure is necessary now to supply 300 million Americans with the access to firearms that the Constitution deems necessary for the US to remain a free state. Otherwise liberty diminishes because fewer guns wind up in fewer hands.

The Second Amendment does very much depend on the existence that industry, because if the government were to allow small arms manufacturing to fail, it would be de facto abridging the people's right to keep and bear arms. It's the only industry that has to exist in the US, by fiat.

If what you're saying were true, it would mean that manufacturing guns and/or ammunition for anything other than personal use could be made illegal without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Which is absurd.

Apparently, this can be pursued at the State level, so it may not be unconstitutional.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/HD4192/Cosponsor

This entire thread is why gun control constantly keeps existing as an issue, you two people who should be political allies are now splitting hairs over relatively minor issues compared to the cost of healthcare and wage stagnation