It's staggering they keep pushing against the only natural rights that's been codified with "shall not be infringed".
Seems pretty clear that all laws limiting anything that is considered a weapon would be unconstitutional.
And before all the BS arguments flow in:
Automatic weapons existed when the constitution was written.
Cannon are still legally owned.
At the time the Constitution writing, entire ships with rows of cannon were in private possession.
Do you really think the framers were stupid and couldn't forsee the development of greater and greater weapons? Why else would they write it this way, considering they'd just been attacked by their own King.
If you disagree with any Thin I've said, I can only think you haven't read enough of the history of the time, to understand they didn't see themselves as rebels (that's a label we've applied), but as loyal subjects of the crown and were being treated like second-class citizens.