This is amazing. And not in a good way:

Dude. Dude.

Maybe the article itself will make a little more sense:

In short, guns today are capable of inflicting far more carnage than anything the framers could have imagined […]

In itself, that isn’t an argument for banning everything other than muskets. Technology evolves. It makes no more sense to say an AR-15 isn’t protected by the Second Amendment than it does to say that computers or ballpoint pens aren’t protected by the First.

But evolving technology does call for evolving regulation. And, in practice, the implementation of the Second Amendment has never been strictly “absolute.” Most gun owners accept that civilians typically can’t own fully automatic rifles or tanks or nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the “arms” of the Second Amendment has evolved over the years, subject to shifts in political and legal norms.

OK …

It’s not entirely clear what it’s arguing.

Well, guess the take-home message here is supposed to be that modern-day guns are kinda bad because they weren’t around when the Second Amendment was written? Or something?

This just seems like a really dumb way to try to win the gun control argument.

There are an awful lot of things that didn’t exist in the Founding Fathers’ days.

Still, as asinine as this is, it at least sheds some more light on progressive hypocrisy:

Isn’t that interesting?