I think you've moved the goalposts here a little. You are making (good) arguments on why the second amendment maybe shouldn't apply any longer and that guns of now are different. You're arguing for gun reform.

However I was speaking in the context of the tradeoffs of danger and the awareness of what blood you get on your hands for agreeing. Although the writers of this bill couldn't forsee AR15s and drone strikes, I'm sure they could forsee that there was a cost to freedom to bear arms.