Well sir, I am no Democrat, to speak to their wants.
The constitution also states that it is up to congress and the supreme court to interpret the laws and whether or not something is constitutional.
The supreme court has stated that a banning of guns in general would be unconstitutional. but it is not unconstitutional to ban certain guns, and yet still leave the right for the people to bear arms in tact.
The supreme court does not agree with you on the terms of banning military grade weapons is a "bad law", saying citizens can have shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, semi-automatic weapons still has the citizens bearing arms, yet the Supreme Court utilizes the General Welfare Clause when making this decision. Looks at the country and its citizenry as a whole, and the safety of the people or the general welfare.
Though speaking of the founding fathers, if we are to be honest, sir - during the times of our founding fathers all they had were one shot pistols, and one shot muskets.. If these are the weapons we were speaking of where you shot one shot and then had to reload I do not think anyone would care - - as well as we did not have a standing army, we had a militia, we do not utilize militias for national defense any longer, so it made sense at the time for the average citizen to have "any weapons" because they were the first line of defense against a national threat - today, as the supreme court has spoken to, we have a military for that.
But fast forwarding, the big next weapon jump used in battle was the gatling gun, which was used during the civil war, which shot several hundred rounds per minute.... so such a gun then that our founding fathers could not even fathom.
Fast forward to today, where you have miniguns, that can shoot 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute with accuracy, also a gun that our founders could not fathom.
One, such as you or I, can only form an opinion, what possible restrictions there may have been by our founding fathers if
-We had a standing military thus the average citizen was not used for national protection
-We had guns that could shoot up to 6,000 rounds per minute before needing to reload vs the one shot and then reload weapons that they had.
I have heard the argument sir, that banning weapons is the road to big government, yet banning military grade weapons has not been shown to increase crime, where you have strict gun laws that make it hard for a person to own any gun is where one can make the argument but saying that [where there is no evidence for] that banning military grade weapons increases crime...
The average person can still have pistols, revolvers, shotguns, rifles and semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15... there is no limit on the amount of guns nor ammo one can have within reason, thus this weaponry, if one is proficient is more than enough for personal, family and property protection.
You have some who say, IT IS TYRANNY IF WE CANNOT HAVE MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS!!!!! - - That is not a view I share, but everyone is entitled to their own view.
Then you have another view, which you may or may not agree with, that takes it pass firearms, and wants "any" weapon the military can have, one woman that I was debating before said, since the government - - military - can have nuclear weapons that we should be able to to.
While I do not know if you share this view, you would forgive my worry of what need does the average person need with nuclear weapons, then you have to weigh that vs the general welfare of the radiation poisoning just from being around it if not properly maintained, and if such a bit of the chemicals gets into a water supply, can kill an entire city within a matter of days - so I fear this idea that it is tyrannical if we cannot get any and all weapons that our military has. - just as I worry what need would the average citizen need with a minigun which can weigh between 47-85 lbs, that can fire 2,000-6,000 rounds per minute.. surely not for home safety, if someone breaks in your home, you are more likely to grab a shotgun, the assault rifle, pistol.. not a gun that you have to lug ...
I apologize for being long-winded, I tend to debate this quite often of.. if you ban any weapon for the average person then it is big government and crime, which "any" is without merit, saying making it harder to get legal weapons may show higher crime rates, is an argument I can understand, but saying if you do not allow us any and all guns under the sun then that is big government and tyranny is an argument that I have never gotten.