The second amendment is written differently than the 14th. The 14th, especially the equal protection clause is more like the 1st - a clear declaration that laws cannot do something, period. The second amendment is not written in that manner - it refers to the right to bear arms "as a part of a well regulated militia." There is no qualifier like this in the 14th amendment. The Second Amendment is a uniquely crafted amendment - grammatically incorrect, with two distinctly separate goals mentioned (right to bear arms is not infringable, but as a part of a "well regulated militia).
You need to know something about what you speak
Automatic weapons are NOT BANNED
You make arrangements to buy the weapon, do the paperwork, pay your fee, then get your stamp that makes you a legal "machine gun" owner in almost all states". For sure in Missouri
Good Lord you can go to Sturgis and shoot a machine gun all day long during the rally,,and people are lined up to do it
If you take a look at current law, there's no comparison between the amount of gun control and the amount of speech or religion control in the US. The US, even with its weak control of guns, has protections that dwarf the limits on speech and religion. Why? Because the 2nd amendment isn't as broad as the 1st.
If the 2nd amendment were really that broad, we wouldn't be able to ban automatic weapons, for instance.
Even Scalia's opinion in Heller, which was the definition of judicial activism, acknowledged there are limits which are legal, such as background checks being ok, laws against grenades, and laws against felons possessing guns. We don't ban felons from speaking.