So In my mind, the hardest “question” is whether the Second Amendment should apply without any modifications to more modern firearms. My personal opinion on the matter is that gun tech has outstripped the relevance of the Second Amendment as it was first written, which means there should be an update to the Second Amendment to clarify scope.

It was never (again, in my personal opinion) meant to be an “anything goes!” thing, it was meant specifically to provide for the organization, arming, and regulation of militias as a result of the country not having any money to supply firearms to its citizens – “maintain your own and know how to use them so that we can muster you into service if needed”. Remember, there was a specific world context that the writers were living in and the finance and armament problems of the Revolutionary War were incredibly fresh in everyone’s mind still.

Your opinion does not line up with laws that have been interpreted by SCOTUS. Cases such as Heller and Bruen support private ownership separate from a militia. Opinions did agree that the amendment is not limitless, but within its scope, it does provide private ownership.

Heller supported the ability for a gun owner to have a firearm that is in common use. The gun in question was a semiautomatic pistol. I think an AR style rifle will fall under common use quite easily. Even congressional Democrats admit it is in common use.

Bruen did a world of good for the second amendment, citing that the Second Amendment is an individual right that may be exercised both in the home and in public. Not only that, but gun laws can not be legislated on a two step approach, but must be looked at through the text and history as the amendment was written.

It’s like you didn’t even read my comment

gun tech has outstripped the relevance of the Second Amendment as it was first written

No, I read it. You’re just wrong.