So? A rifled musket was high tech shizzle in the late 1700s, but they were not restricted. Never mind that they had unprecedented accuracy. Neither were Breach Loaders restricted (a small quantity existed, and were evben used by the brits in the war), despite being leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.

The technology argument is crap. Guns do the same thing now they did then. The document is quite specific that the right to bear arms will not be infringed.
We arent talking here about accuracy. We are talking more about rate of fire. The automatic weapon has COMPLETELY changed the face of warfare. Instead of getting one or two rounds off a minute, modern automatic weapons can unload thousands. Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be allowed to own a fully automatic machine gun? How about hand grenades? Would you be happy knowning your neighbour had a mortar? What about a rocket launcher? Flak canon? Tank? A tank is just an armmament, right? Not allowing Tanks is unconstitutional then... Why stop there... Should a private citizen (if they can afford it) be allowed to own a strategic bomber? How about nuclear arms? Just keeping the government in check. Where do you draw the line? Because Im pretty damn sure you draw a line somewhere and all it says is "arms".