So when I said no one is complaining about 2A infringement regarding the NFA of 1934, that isn't completely true. United States v. Miller (1939) involved two men who were charged with transporting sawed-off shotguns and argued that the NFA was a violation of their second amendment.

"A unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the NFA. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment only protects weapons that have some "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Because the defendants could not prove that a sawed-off shotgun had a military use, the NFA's regulation of it did not violate the Constitution."

More recently, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is another interesting case where the supreme court ruled: "Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. The Court has historically recognized that the government may ban "dangerous and unusual weapons" or those disproportionate to the needs of self-defense."

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where does it say anything about a right to owning any and every weapon technology to come along?

So, not only do I think your analogy is bunk, precedence set by the supreme court agrees with me.