You've made it clear that you don't respect the Constitution and would not let it stand in the way of your agenda. Congratulations, you're a politician. Probably a Democrat, but you could be a RINO.Even though i know outlawing machineguns violates the second, I am still support banning automatic machineguns for my political purposes. I am not going to pursue a strict interpretation of the Constitution in how I would vote if I was a politician.
If you understood the 9th amendment correctly, and the writings of the founders and the general process of SCOTUS decisions, you would understand that where there is a question of what the Constitution means, or interpreting rights, it should always be interpreted in favor of individual liberty, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public intrest, provable and beyond question, in restricting something...and that "prior restraint" will result in great benefit to the citizenry.
It is provable that shouting "fire!" fraudulently in a crowded theater is overwhelmingly very bad for the public (1st Amd). It is provable that allowing Tom Dick and Harry to own nukes is overwhelmingly very bad for the public. It is not provable that the ownership of automatic firearms is an overall negative for the public, or that the public would benefit greatly from a restriction on them. Full-auto weapons, and the AWB "assault weapons list" of guns, (which are not the same thing) are so rarely used in crimes that we'd have to ban ballpeen hammers and kitchen knives first in order to be consistent.