Thoughts on the Founding Father's Perception of the Second Amendment.

We have all heard the argument "The Founding Fathers didn't have assault weapons when they wrote the constitution so neither should we." This is a statement that addresses the technological advances in weaponry and how some believe that Americans are stretching the 2nd Amendment to a point of danger. Here's what I think. I have already made it clear that I am pro-gun rights with certain restrictions such as bump stocks and fully-automatic firearms. For the most part though, I support the 2nd Amendment entirely. I also believe that the statement above is rash and does not address the stipulations that modern U.S. legislature has instilled upon modern firearms. Earlier, I discussed certain laws that have been enacted as of recently relative to the initial writing of the U.S, Constitution. For example, there were little to no laws that prevented criminals from keeping their guns as well as laws that prevented persons under the age of 18 from purchasing and owning a firearm. There is an abundance of laws set in place after 1787 that pertain to gun ownership today that did not exist before. As it stands, the current laws are firm and they work very well. As for criminal activity involving firearms, the individuals committing the offenses are deliberately breaking firm laws which is cannot be "fixed" by adding new laws and hoping criminals abide by them. In conclusion, the notion that the Founding Fathers did not foresee high powered weapons and therefore said firearms should be illegal to possess is an illegitimate argument because of current regulations set in place to keep firearm purchases and ownership safe.
There is no way to keep criminals away from criminal activity by criminalizing things that criminals already ignore.