when the 2nd amendment was written, the forefathers could not have foreseen the weapons develop into rapid bullet discharge monsters that did not require any special arms knowledge, and thus prolifirating themselves into the hands of mass population...

the firearm has brought an equilizer into the fight scene, where a less powerful opponent is capable of taking out a stronger enemy by discharging a projectile from a distance, thus keeping him/herself safe and at the same time inflicting the most damage/injury to the opponent.
So, the weapons should be classified as tools - while it clearly possible to kill someone using an ax or a hammer, the ax and hammer have distinct purpose, other than to kill... a handgun, machine gun or for that matter of fact, any gun, has no other purpose for its existence other than destruction or murder - even target practicing damages the target beyong repair.

So, while the argument has been repeated numerous times, that the guns do not kill people, people kill people, it is very similar in its notion to the fact that wrenches do not unscrew bolts, people do... go ahead, and try to unscrew a bolt with bare hands... so... the guns are the tools - many states ban posession of lock picks (unless you are a licensed locksmith) as tools of burglary... the locksmiths are registered, bonded individuals or businesses entrusted with those tools... how comes we can not bond or otherwise regulate the weapons?

we do not allow drunk drivers on the road, and label them as killers behind the wheel, and some jurisdictions going to some crazy extends to ruin their lives beyond repair... and yet, we are OK with a handgun in the hands of some old lady (why in the hell my mother needs a hand gun??? she never shot one, and probably will hurt herself if she tries to use it!!!)

We do not allow sales and consumption of alcohol by an individual under 21 years of age (has nothing to do with biological maturity, it is due to mental immaturity) yet allow an individual at 18 to vote, bear arms in military and bear arms in private settings...

Here is something from Wikipedia - granted, not being an American history scholar, I can not vouch for correctness of this article, but these are conditions in the country BEFORE the 2nd amendment was adopted (as per Wikipeadia) - the US gov-t had no money to maintain its army and loading the responsobility to "bear" your own weapon on to the shoulders of the "recruits" was one feasible option...
***********

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[3] The chief problem with the new government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, "no money."[4]
The Continental Congress could print money, but by 1786 the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a useless object or person was .. not worth a Continental, referring to the Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[4] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[4] No interest was paid on debt owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on outstanding debts as their dates came due.[4]
In the world of 1787 the United States could not defend its sovereignity as an independent nation. Most of the troops in the 625-man U.S. Army were deployed facing—but not threatening—British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[5] Spain closed New Orleans to American commerce; U.S. officials protested to no effect. Barbary Pirates began seizing American ships of commerce; the Treasury had no funds to pay the pirates' extortionate demands. If any extant or new military crisis required action the Congress had no credit or taxing power to finance a response.[4]
The new government (of the united states) was proving inadequate to the obligations of sovereignty within the confederation of the individual states. That is, although the Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed between Great Britain and the United States and each of the states by name, the various individual states proceeded blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[4]Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated directly with foreigners, raised armies and made war, all violating the letter and the spirit of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”.
During Shays' Rebellion in Massachesetts, Congress could provide no money to support an endangered constituent state. Nor could Massachusetts pay for its own internal defense; General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise funds among Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[6] During the next Convention, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a binding compact or even a viable government. Connecticut paid nothing and "positively refused" to pay U.S. assessments for two years.[7] A rumor had it that a "seditious party" of New York legislators had opened a conversation with the Viceroy of Canada. To the south, the British were said to be openly funding Creek Indian raids on white settlers in Georgia and adjacent territory. Savannah was fortified and the State of Georgia was under martial law.[8]
Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. When a state produced only one member in attendance its vote was not counted. If a state's delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.[9] The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to govern."[10] The vision of a "respectable nation" among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Rufus King. Their dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.[11]