How do you go from "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to an assumption that this somehow limits "autonomous non-human entities"?
The default situation with rights for people is essentially "everything is permitted unless it has been explicitly forbidden by the laws", with the added restrictions of what the government shall not ever forbid.
If the government does nothing, autonomous non-human entities have the right to bear arms - it doesn't need to be given, it's sufficient if it hasn't been taken away. Since the second amendment does not apply to such entities, the government can freely restrict these rights if it chooses to, but currently it has not.
The default situation with rights for people is essentially "everything is permitted unless it has been explicitly forbidden by the laws", with the added restrictions of what the government shall not ever forbid.
If the government does nothing, autonomous non-human entities have the right to bear arms - it doesn't need to be given, it's sufficient if it hasn't been taken away. Since the second amendment does not apply to such entities, the government can freely restrict these rights if it chooses to, but currently it has not.