All right, as I suspected earlier, you have been less than forthcoming about your views and intentions here. But for a moment, I'll play along.
Mikejonestkd, there is a world of difference between a sword, a revolutionary war musket, and an AR-15.
No, there isn't, especially in the context of self defense, One proper blow from any of these is lethal. Genocide was committed in Rwanda in our lifetime, primarily with 99 cent chinese machetes. Your naivete is showing w/ regard to the relative lethality of weapons. They are all deadly weapons. But an AR15 fires a cartridge that is not powerful enough to be considered humane as a deer hunting round in many states. Yet a head shot with a .22 rifle will likely end a life. And almost no bullet wound will cause a mammal to bleed out as fast as a deep wound from a blade. So your distinctions are misguided and meaningless.
Which somewhat leads back to my point that firearms are not inherently a basic human right.
If there is a right to self defense, then there is the right to the neccessary means to effect it, otherwise the right itself has been abrogated. On this planet, at this time, and for the forseeable future, that means a gun.
. . .the argument could be made that there are less lethal options available for self defense, which are still legal in those areas preventing the possession of firearms.
Do you suppose there is a reason that police officers possess a range of options to defend their lives? According to your half-baked theory, cops could all turn in their pistols and be perfectly safe with their tasers. Nonsense.
The nature of a weapon is that to be effective it must be capable of overcoming the adversary, who in the real world will have a gun or a knife. Equal or greater force deployed with greater speed wins the day.
Based on the argument above, I'd argue that while the right to bear arms is a right we are fortunate enough to have in this country, it is a privilege and is by no means inherent to human nature.
Whatever tool may be required to protect one's life is necessarily part and parcel of the preservation of the right to self defense. Attempting to separate the two is nonsensical. If you believe in the right to self defense (and I'm not totally sure you do) then you must accept that the means to accomplish it is part of the right. It is otherwise theoretical, and void.
Furthermore, the vague wording of the second amendment failed to specify WHAT TYPE of arms can not be restricted.
RIGHT.
Heller has ruled on that, but that goes to show it can again be ruled on in the future.
WRONG. There was talk in dicta about protection for weapons in 'common use', which supports my point here, but nothing in the ruling that would bind a future court. Semi-automatic firearms, like AR15s are in very common use.
And yet Miller has ruled essentially that only military firearms are protected. So should our sporting rifles be taken away, and should we be issued fully automatic military weapons in their place? This is obviously not what the second amendment stands for...
That's not the least bit obvious. What exactly should a weapon look like that has prevention of future tyranny as one of it's primary purposes? The preservation of the pre-existing right to self defense protects weapons in common use, and protects keeping and bearing for ANY lawful purpose, be that hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and should the need arise, militia use.