For decades, there was no inspanidual right to bear arms and no legal problem with gun control. It's literally only in the 80s-90s that the current interpretation of an inspanidual right started to bubble it's way up through right wing. Even conservative justices have referred to this current interpretation as a fraud. There is nothing obvious about an interpretation that stops AR-15s from being banned or regulated.
That's because Scalia did some creative historical analysis and conflated the right to bear arms with the right to self defense and the right to have a revolution. All three are separate things. This whole thing about a "prefatory" vs "operative" clause is an inherently circular argument that was not taken seriously until a widespread information/misinformation campaign successfully convinced conservatives and then the American public that the whole militia thing was irrelevant.
Basically, the current interpretation is a result of a fixation on originalism, agenda driven amateur historical analysis, luck, and one side having extremely intense feelings about guns.
---
http://i.imgur.com/0Bi86cp.gif