I think it's a lot more stupid to assume that laws put in place to allow for single fire muskets that took significant amounts of time to load and fire should automatically equally apply to machine guns.
We should be able to draw a clear and logical line between the kinds of guns the people who wrote the constitution envisioned the American people owning and the kinds of guns we have today, but obviously not everyone agrees with that. They all agree there is a difference and that lines exist, but feel that they should just be ignored.
Which... couldn't ever be purchased by an 18 year old at Walmart after a month of saving up? And which were tracked in both their ownership and their movements anywhere near coastlines? And which, when used in criminal acts, were requisitioned (an irrecoverable financial hit) and the operators executed or imprisoned for life?
Yeah, there’s a line somewhere obviously, but it’s also not defined by “is it an arm? Okay then you have a right to bear it!”
As technology advances, either we have to be comfortable with more and more destructive devices being in the hands of everyday people, or we have to be comfortable with restricting access to more and more devices that qualify as “arms.”