I've been reading up on the second amendment for awhile now, and it seems to me that this notion of a "personal right to carry any weapon ever manufactured for civilian use" is a recent invention, as late as 2008. Granted it's been touted as such for longer, but the earliest SCOTUS ruling I am able to find comes from 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed the "individual right to carry." But as far back as 1876, United States v. Cruikshank established that the second amendment was only regarding the rights of states to regulate guns, and actually goes out of its way to establish that there is not an "individual right" to gun ownership, stating that the second amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government:"

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States. "

--United States v. Cruikshank ruling
The Westlaw Insider Blog has an interesting breakdown of the timeline of these cases and their effects on national gun laws, if you're interested in some casual reading:

"In writing for the Heller majority, Justice Scalia seemingly misinterpreted Cruikshank’s holding of “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution” to mean that the individual right to bear arms pre-existed the Constitution, which merely codified that existing right in the form of the Second Amendment.

Scalia made no reference to Cruikshank’s statements immediately following those excerpts, which explicitly disqualify any idea of there being an individual right to bear arms.

Nor did Scalia make any reference to the fact that Cruikshank was evaluating the validity of a law that prohibited two or more people from conspiring to deprive anyone of his constitutional rights – and that the ruling held the second count of the criminal indictment (“an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the ‘right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose’”) as invalid because the Constitution grants no such right.

Justice Scalia’s misunderstanding of Cruikshank aside, is it still possible that the Framers intended to codify through the Second Amendment an individual right to firearms, as the Heller majority contends?

It’s possible, I suppose, but it’s a possibility reliant on the assumption that the understandings of the vast majority of state and federal courts since the ratification of the Second Amendment are incorrect."
That said....I've brought this up in conversations about gun ownership with a few people on facebook, and so far the most common responses include (A) "You don't understand the constitution" (I'm not saying I do, I'm merely citing people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution), (B) "Second Amendment rights, I can own whatever guns I want!" (ignores the entire point), and (C) "Well, the SCOTUS said in 2008 that we DO have an individual right!"

That last one is technically a fair point, though it's interesting because nine times out of ten, I'm having this conversation with a person who said SCOTUS was "corrupt" for ruling Obamacare constitutional.

Anyway, thoughts? Strongly-worded opinions? Violent knee-jerk rhetoric? I'm hoping that maybe here, it will be possible to discuss this in an adult manner, without resorting to ignorant partisan rhetoric.