I was told by a friend, well actually an ex friend, that I didn't need semi-automatic firearms to hunt with. I told my friend, ex friend, that my semi-automatic firearms were not for hunting but for when and if she ever tried to take any of my firearms away from me. My defensive firearms should be at least equal to any offensive firearms, period.

Citing those old weapons accepts the premise that the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons similar to what existed around the time it was ratified. Accepting this premise, it would be logical to compare other features of guns of the time in terms of accuracy, max practical firing rate, and time required to reload, and to the 2nd Amendment does not apply to anything that exceeds those parameters.

I wonder what improvements, if any, the people of that time saw in guns during their lifetime. If they saw improvements in technology but failed to mention future improvements in the 2nd Amendment, that's evidence they intended it to apply to some higher-tech forms of weapons.

The entire premise regarding the type of guns is irrelevant and is used to divert the issue. The purpose of the Second Amendment, as well documented in the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings, is to assure that the citizenry has the same power as the government. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport, and only marginally with self-defense against individual criminals. It has everything to do with preventing the government from becoming criminal. An often overlooked (intentionally) case is Miller (1939), which clearly stipulated that the Second Amendment applies exclusively to military-style weapons. In other words, only weapons used by the military (presumably American military) are protected by the Amendment. So, the current mass hysteria against rapid-firing guns, large capacity magazines, pistol grips - is completely unconstitutional.

What is important, is to note, that the more tyrannical our government becomes, the more afraid it is of individuals who have guns. Clearly, this must be obvious.

Someone should suggest that in order to prevent drunk driving it should be more difficult for sober drivers to get cars. The debate shouldn't be about what did the founder's assume exactly and then go with that. The intention that people should be armed without the governments permission or intrusion prevents said governments from becoming tyrannies, provided the citizens recognize that their government is tyrannical. The US government has already become a tyranny and few recognize it so they don't resist. The failure on the part of the citizens to realize they no longer have a republic is probably more important to the tyrants than the fact that they have guns.
Removing the right to have weapons is not new to this era. In medieval times kings often forbid the 'commoners' to own swords for the same reason, they feared a rebellion against their authority. This was common in Europe and Asia.
Now with requirements for approval by the state before an individual can have a weapon, licensing, registering the weapon and registering ammunition sales weapons owners might as well put everything they have outside in a box to make it easier for the state to pick up whenever they feel like it.

The second amendment was designed to protect us citizens from government. If the colonists didnt have weapons, the english would have run them over, and the framers of our constitution rebelled against government restriction on gun ownership by regular citizens.

No wonder the liberals are so against guns- it strikes at the heart of excessive government power !!

govts do not "allow" any gun rights...they can only "recognize" individual rights...whether they choose to do so or not...individual rights are "natural" rights...ref. Hobbes, Locke, and number of philosophers..

There are many period examples of colonial era rapid firing rifles and pistols.
But most telling is that there was no prohibition on ANY weapons for private ownership or use until the 1934 National Firearms Act. In fact, the only Supreme Court Case regarding limiting the types of weapons an individual could own was US V Miller in 1938. The weapon in question was a cut down shotgun. The decision stated that the Court had not been shown that such a weapon was useful to a militia, and therefore not protected.
There was NO defense presented to SCOTUS in this case. Had there been, 1934 NFA and all subsequent gun control would never have happened.

OK sports fans - where was the outrage with six shooters back in the 1800's? Seems to me there was a lot more personal responsibility back then and if you picked a fight you would probably lose. Also, not much 2nd Amendment rhetoric back then
As for our Founding Fathers understanding the nature of the concerns of the 2nd Amendment -
it would have limitations. It doesn't. They observed the evolution of weapons from rocks to firearms. None would be so stupid as to think their muskets would be ultimate weapon for all eternity. The Founding Fathers worried more about tyranny and less about weapons used.
Given the path our country is following history will repeat itself.

I never heard anyone say (never read it in print) that the Second Amendment applies to single-shot weapons. Do you have a citation? (I mean a credible citation, not just some comment in a social media discussion.)

Ok, I changed it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall ... be infringed. if they can shoot more than once.

And what about the First Amendment? There were no typewriters at the time, no computers, no telegraph, no telephone, no radio, and no TV. So does that mean that the First Amendment is obsolete?--Is the Constitution supposed to be based on the natural rights of man, or is it just an issue of a periodical advertising ladies' clothing fashions?--We don't wear hoop skirts or those ruffly hats anymore, either. And has the view of the rights of man degenerated to that level?

That the 2nd amendment only provides for original day weapons is stupid. With the obvious exceptions of bazooka's machine guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons, citizens should be able to arm themselves with weapons of current technology.

" A well-regulated militia..." you regulate the militia by keeping it in line, by making it fear the armed citizen.

So, does that mean "freedom of the press" only applies to what Ben Franklin and his contemporaries had available at the time? Would that mean "freedom of the press" does not apply to radio, television, or the Internet?

We only have to study warfighting tactics to come to the natural and logical interpretation of the 2nd, it is to insure citizens could stand equally against an armed government. The tactics changed, with the exception of snipers, as weaponry improved and made lining up and shooting at each other point blank obsolete. I am fully in favor of returning to those early smokepoles and meeting any given prog/communist politician, or advocate for ignoring the American Constitution on any patch of dirt armed equally with said rifle to verify my God given rights. This is nothing more than an attempt (yet again) to usurp power and roll this Nation over.

It's not required at all to debate the thin language of the 2nd Amendment to try to unveil some secret meaning in it's tea leaves. Nor is it necessary to listen to Mark Hamill's idiocy when stating America's right to own a musket.

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was well conveyed and well-understood prior to the signing of the Bill of Rights. The approach of the framers was discussed, debated, and published at-length in the Federalist Papers - primarily #29 and #46. The Declaration of Independence could not have made the framer's hostility to oppression any more clear.

The British Monarch had used his standing army to oppress the colonies and their people. Having just repulsed the crown, there was no reason to believe that the British (or some other foreign power) would not return. They also understood the peoples' natural affinity will be to their state governments - not to the centralized federal government. In #46, Madison wrote that the Federal Government should have a standing army sufficient to repel an enemy - and used a formula that computed to 30,000 soldiers. This would be sufficient for a defense, but not sufficient to oppress the states he argued. (obviously this has changed over time). In order to fully defend the newly formed country, the states' militias and the people will be needed - amounting to about 1 out of every 25 citizens capable of individually contributing to the defense. The Revolutionary War was fought with about 1 out of 33, or 3% (hence the flag many veterans like myself revere). Over the history, about 3% have contributed to the defense of the United States and this hasn't changed dramatically from one war to the next.

Madison also postulated that the Federal army should be small compared to the combined state forces - approximately 1/5, but that the resources of the country be used. In other words, small but well-equipped - something that is actually true today. (we have a small standing army compared to pre-war Iraq or North Korea).

Madison's belief in the patriotism and unity of the people predicted that a free, but armed, society would rely on the individuals' love of their country to defend it. As one of the oldest continuous forms of government on Earth - one can also acknowledge the success.

Fear of ratification was the largest driving concern, so while there was extensive debate in the Federalist Papers, they knew the states would not ratify a powerful Federal Government, or any restrictions at all on firearms. You see, the crown also quartered troops in peoples' homes without warning - often putting the family in the barn while the soldiers used their bedrooms and furniture. Any speaking out about the crown, would lead to confiscation of weapons, etc. The intent was simple, the right of the citizenry to defend itself from a tyrannical central government could not be infringed by the Federal Government. Now... there is a considerable loophole allowing a 'state' to infringe..

The language: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. "[Federalist 46]

There was no intent to hunt food, or defend the home, the intent was very clearly the citizens' right to defend themselves from tyranny. There is no limit on the 'type' of weapon that requires -in short, it's equal to whatever the government has.

The National Rifle Association is largely founded on the principles of Alexander Hamilton in #29 - "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute [counter-balance in modern English] that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." [Federalist 29]

You see.. there wasn't the need to elaborate the 2nd Amendment's context because they all understood the meaning of it. To defend against the tyranny of a central government and a standing army, and in 29 they made it very clear what a militia was... states' defense and the citizens. They also knew we would be the only country on earth endowing this right, and we cannot argue with the result - 250 years of civil liberty and freedom.

Are there any documents, papers, journals, news articles, etc that the founders wrote laying out their thought process on all of this? And not just the usual suspects like Franklin, Washington, Adams, etc. There were 11 members of the committee to agreed to the Bill of Rights, who else wrote about their thought process in making it?