Technology and the evolution of the 2A. (enemies, weapons, military)

[NVplumber]

To start, technology has advanced since the ratification of our Constitution. Much has been made that our forebears did not foresee technology, such as the semi auto rifle.
Please! Weapons, such as the ubiquitous AR 15, are a natural evolution in technology. The US was the first country to adopt a semi auto rifle for issue to troops. The M1 Garand. From there, technology evolved , and we now have the AR series.
Functionally, tbe AR is no different tban the Garand. It is just more modular and advanced, cosmetically and ergonomically. It has been the way of things tbat civilians in the US have always had access to advances in firearms technolgy on a par with what the military issues. It is logical that we would do so. However, we can't and don't have easy access to true military hardware. We are limited to semi auto only versions of service weapons, and I'm ok with that.
The military versions have the ability to go full auto. Civilian versions do not have that. We are restricted, az civilians, in the technology we can possess. Therefore, the 2A has evolved as weapons tech has evolved.
Now, we have these people who feel civilian access to technology need to step backward to the 19th century, and that this will make us safer, somehow. In their minds, we can't, as civilians, be trusted with these advances.
By this logic, we shouldn't be trusted with computers either, since the framers didnt envision this advance.
Think about this for a second. What is the favored method that enemies of tbe US use against us? The "assault rifle"? Or the personal computer? Which technology is more dangerous? Which is used to attack more people on a daily basis? Anx finally, which is more dangerous in the wrong hands? A computer can wipe out folks lives with a keystroke, and do, every second. A computer can take down critical systems, that can kill millions, and the capacity to do so is in place.
Access to powerful technology like this is kinda scary yea? And folks are worried about semi auto versions of standard service rifles? If access to technology is so dangerous and deadly, in the wrong hands, and "comprehensive" measures are needed to restrict access to it, why the narrow focus on firearms?
I can't wait to hear the hoplophobes rationalization of this. We, as civilians, have access to much technology that is in widespread use with the military, and firearms technology is a very small part of that. If the mere potential for misuse of these advances is such an issue, how "comprehensive" is this focus on firearms?
Seems nonsensical and narrow to me. Driven by emotion only, by the same folks who claim a higher intellect and moral high ground. Yea....right.