If that part of your constitution was not included by the FF how do you think your country would look in the current period?
Right up until the 70s or 80s (whenever the NRA went batshit insane), no difference. Firearms were pretty necessary for the settlement of the continent, so I don’t see any movement to restrict them that didn’t happen (such as noted liberals like Wyatt Earp banning open carry in various cow towns).
Then, assuming the mass shootings that happened still happen, I’d expect federal and state gun control laws, possibly similar to what Australia has done.
We would still be carrying swords.
There would be a lot more bears walking around.
Little difference until after the Civil War: individual states might or might not have rtkaba provisions in their state constitutions. In the absence of the Second Amendment, during Reconstruction the Union government might pass federal laws disarming former rebels. Probably this counterfactual would start to diverge significantly around the end of the nineteenth century, with the federal government passing various disarmament laws affecting aliens, radicals, striking workers, etc. During the 1920s or 1930s, instead of having to pull legal workarounds like tax stamps or interstate commerce, the federal government would probably flatly ban civilian automatic weapons. Gun control would still be largely a state/local matter but supplemented by federal laws criminalizing gun possession or enhancing penalties in a wide variety of circumstances. Especially after the 1960s the federal government would probably make disarmament a long-term federal policy, with various carrot-and-stick measures (federal funding, etc.) to persuade the states to eliminate civilian gun ownership. Something like the Assault Weapons Ban would have passed and been permanent, and of course there would never have been Heller or McDonald.
(CONT.)
Probably handguns would be illegal in nearly all jurisdictions except for antiques or collectables. There would probably still be hunting weapons, but like in Britain: heavily licensed and registered, and large classes of weapons forbidden (no semi-automatics, no removable magazines, etc.) In the cities of course wherever you could find heroin or cocaine for sale you would also find illegal guns. Gun trafficking would be a major activity of organized crime. In short, the US would resemble other countries with both gun bans and innately high violence and crime rates. Not as bad as Mexico perhaps but not a Britain.
Insufficient data.
I could postulate the future question though of “Given the logarithmic progressions in forensic science by 2013 and given that at least one charge would be able to stick every time, why didn’t you turn in you guns in the 2017 Amnesty and and before the Drone Strafing Massacres of 2025?”
No, that’s a different thread----The right to arm bears. 
Now, back to the OP: It wouldnt make any difference whatsoever, second ammendment or not.
In the early days, guns were a part of life for the average farmer.
And in modern times, guns would still be a part of life for the average thug and gang member.
The vast number of pistols on the streets would still be there. If the guns weren’t produced by local American industry, they would be smuggled in along with the packages of cocaine and heroin.
The only difference would be psychological-there would be no connection in people’s imaginations between guns and patriotism.
Guns would be seen as a simple issue connected to crime, associated with gangs and criminals, and left for the police to handle.
America’s streets would not be any safer (nor more dangerous) than they are now.
But the schools and movie theaters would be a bit safer, because there would be fewer guns easily availble at home for kids to grab.
And there would be fewer dead spouses due to crimes of passion with an easily available gun in the house.
And there would be a whole lot less hot air and useless pontification about the importance of gun laws.
Agreed.
Since there is no other nation on Earth with a similar history and similar demographics, it would be almost impossiblle to speculate how this nation would have advanced. It’s possible that this country could have even become several smaller nations if there was no right to bear arms.