I disagree that modern guns are in the Constitution in any recognizable form. The Constitution was written 300 years ago- back then, it was a different ball game. People actually could fight off their government with a militia because the firearms accessible to both civilians and the government were directly comparable.

As I said above, now we are in a middle ground. On one hand, we don’t have a comparable firearm situation (the people already can’t fight their government on an even playing field, as we have already banned the weapons our government has but we can’t, like most (if not all?) fully automatic weapons, helicopters, tanks, etc. that it was be ridiculous for a common person to be able to have, or even for the mega wealthy to have,) but on the other hand, we have too many weapons that society is too dangerous to enjoy living in.

We arbitrarily decided that being able to shoot up a school but being unable to fight a basic police force is the amount of weaponry the Constitution guarantees, but there is absolutely no backing to that claim.

In no world did the Founders envision the modern firearm crisis as the guarantee within the 2nd Amendment. Even if they could understand the physical development of modern weapons, the scale of what weapons are allowed to the common person versus the government is completely different.

Either we have a right to all weapons so that we are on even playing field with the government (again, do you want the rich to be able to buy the high end weapons?) or we acknowledge that limiting firearms is the basis for a healthy society.

Edit: Typo