Technology has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment and the reasons restrictions on arms sales exist. An "arm" can be an F-15, howitzer, anything that is widely considered to be a weapon is considered an "arm," which is why when we sell F-15s to Israel for example its called an "Arms sale." So then why can I not, as a private citizen, own one of those F-15s sent to Israel, same spec and model?
Its precisely because if I did own one, along with all the other parts and logistics to make it work, I could wreck havoc with it. IE, the technological change that "arms" as a broad category have seen in the past 200 years, has made private ownership of some of these unsafe for the general public. Don't tell me that technology has nothing to do with it because it has everything to do with the reason gun and weapons laws have changed since 1790 to the present.
As for the comparison between the 1st and 2nd Amendment and how technology has changed regarding both, how can someone not see the difference? One increases the capacity of an individual to communicate, share information, etc. The other technology advances increases the capacity of an individual to kill others and destroy property. Just because the two rights are written down on the same piece of paper doesn't mean they have to be considered the same way as people, society, technology, and the world changes.
As for this Ben Franklin quotation in response to my considers about security regarding unregulated firearms selling/trading "Those who would give up a little freedom to gain a little security, desire neither, and will lose both." Is being taken radical out of context and being held up here as some holy law which always must be taken as true. Sorry but you can easily taken this quotation to an extreme end while maintaining its literal meaning. For example, the purpose of laws is to provide security but also limit freedom. For example I do not have the right to murder someone, which is a limit on my freedom of action, but exist for security reasons because all want to live in a secure country. To exist in any kind of social community, all humans give up some kind of freedom and step away from total anarchy for the security benefit those laws provide.
Also consider that 1st Amendment rights have been infringed upon in several cases in both digital and real space. For example I have no right to advocate killing the President, or how to explain ways to build bombs online or in books, or to distribute child pornography. There are all reasons for these restrictions on speech existing, but if you only read the literal interpretation of the 1st Amendment they are all violations of it.
Consider also the implications of fear upon the general public, a society living in fear is not free. We only need to look at countless examples of people being ruled by fear. People who are afraid of bodily harm, death, or property destruction are not truly free. The kind of arms proliferation many people are discussing in here I believe would result in a society of fear for many people. Now you might say that "Well its my right to do ______, and to hell with everyone else. If they are scared of my technical pick-up truck too bad." Wong, you do not have the right to inflict that kind of emotional state upon people. For example if you were to run up to a small child and scare the **** outta them with screaming/yelling/whatever but never actually physically touch, prevent their free movement, do any physically harm or whatever else. You could still be arrested, because that child, along with everyone else in this country, has the right not to subjected to that mental status.
I'm well aware that there is a fine line in this argument because people can claim to be, and may honestly be, scared of all kinds of things other people too. And that the line changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and throughout time.
Now again, I am a gun owner, no one accuse me of being some anti-gun left wing nut.