Self-defense is an inalienable right -- part of a right to life. Because of that, it cannot be taken away without individual due process.
The protection of your right to self-defense with a weapon, on the other hand, is up to the citizens of each state. The citizens decide which weapons may be used and under what conditions.
"and how do you think the framers would respond to that today?"
The framers would support a decision made at the state level -- that is the sum and substance of federalism.
So, the right of self-defense cannot be taken away without individual due process, except that citizens decide which weapons weapons may be used and under what conditions? I’m paraphrasing there, but that should be pretty close.
This is absurd on its face because these issues are certainly not put to any sort of ballot. And make no mistake, self-defense is the real issue, not firearms. They are a proxy of sorts because they are singular and de facto the weapons of choice currently, there really isn’t any competition. Is it due process to prohibit citizens right of self-defense?