That being said, they could have hardly envisioned the advent of high capacity magazines or any number of semi automatic weapons from the AR-15, AK-47 all the way to some who wish to own a M107.
Tell us why you believe that is the case. A properly placed bullet from a AR15 doesn't make you more dead than one from a smoothbore musket. In fact, the .223 bullet probably does LESS damage. Magazine capacity? If that were really a 2A issue, the founders would have banned ownership of more than one firearm. They did not of course. After all, ten guys can fire ten different single shot weapons faster than one guy with a semi automatic and a ten round magazine. Again, what evidence do you have that the founders could not have envisioned an AK47 and that if they could have, they would have restricted certain types of firearms. I believe you are wrong but I welcome you to make your case.
It's very simple, in the case of an AR-15 I have the capaicty with that 5.56 round to kill a lot more people in a shorter period of time than a person with a musket does. I suggest anyone who has ever shot black power try and reload your weapon and shoot the same number of rounds in the same time you can with an AR-15 at the same number of targets in the same time period. None of this really matters anyway, because to me as I suggested they are subject to regulation in any number of ways regardless of the type of weapon they are even it its a an old single action Colt Army. These weapons are items sold across state lines no different than a car or a microwave oven and as such are subject to regualtion under the Commerce Clause. One other thing I was pointing out was that for the most part it was left to the states to decide what was best for themselves and under the 10th Amendment you have another avenue in which weapons can be regulated. My statement was that they could have hardly envisioned todays types of weapons when crafting the constitution and did not include any statement as to they would have restricted them if they would have. What I did say was that the Founding fathers were a bit smarter than people give them credit for sometimes and to suggest that the consitution give a person an unlimited right to own any type of weapon they so choose does not take into account several of the preceeding parts of the constitution that gave states and congress the right to regulate them. I also believe I tried to point out that gun ownership itself should never be attempted to be taken away , but weapon types are and should be subject to regulation.