What did the Founders mean...

[gejohnston]

23. just a few things,

The Militia Act of 1792 doesn't have that much to do with the national guard since it isn't a state militia. It is funded and trained by the federal government.

That act did not give all Americans the right to military arms as it only applied to all those enrolled.

Most civilian arms were superior to military weapons. For example, civilians had rifles, while the military only had muskets. The same is true of repeating weapons from that time until well into the 19th century.
Also, the founders did not, nor did any of the Enlightenment thinkers, believe the State gave individual rights. They were, as am I, strong believers in natural rights theory. Meaning, the rights protected by the BoR are limits on the government from infringing on individual natural rights. Meaning, you have the right because you exist. Today, I think that is the fundamental difference between liberals and progressives. Liberals, which I am, still believe and support the Enlightenment and Natural Law Theory, described by Locke and Paine while progressives, which I am not, seem to have more in common with European conservatives 200 years ago.

What is it about Swiss gun laws you like? What tangible benefit to our society do you think there would be? Switzerland, like most of Europe and Canada, views it as a privilege like driving. But then, given a number of restrictions on speech etc, I'm guessing what we take for granted as rights are simply privileges.

No, I don't consider ideological reasons valid. Outside of shill studies that cherry pick data, there is no evidence gun laws affect crime rates. In fact, that is the plurality of criminology studies show. What there is a perfect correlation between the GINI coefficient and crime.
The real issue amounts to wealth inequality and decaying infrastructure especially in the urban centers like Baltimore, Chicago, and Newark. Since the Democrats are viewed as the "party of gun control", which is not popular, which is why the euphemism of "gun safety" is used, that loses elections. As more POC and women are getting involved in the shooting sports, and Generation Z is projected to be far more conservative than any generation in my lifetime, the prospects doesn't look good for us does it?
Just three things to explain where I'm coming from
I am personally opposed to malum prohibitum laws in general. Since CCW liberalization, violent crime either continued to drop at the same rate as before. No shootouts over parking spaces etc. That tells me that the prohibitions had no added value and shouldn't have existed.
Laws don't prevent anything. They simply define what is acceptable in a society. Heroin has been strictly controlled if not banned for over a century. More Americans still die of heroin overdose than gunshot wounds.
Which party do you trust to deal with the root of the problem I mentioned above? Same here. So why shoot that party in the foot?