Philosophical questions incoming!
It looks clear from the 2A that the founders put no restrictions, exceptions, disclaimers, limits, conditions, or parameters whatsoever on their decree.  
"Shall not be infringed". Period.
However, this is not how it's turned out at all.
Just a serious question, how did they feel in that era about criminals?  Obviously felons today cannot own or wield firearms,  but was that written into the Constitution elsewhere in the document, or in a different legal document of the day, or did that restriction just happen one day, years later?  Any legal scholars here? How can the government take away a right that is not theirs to take? OTOH, how many would feel comfortable with a convicted murderer recently out on bail or parole waltzing into a store and legally buying up rifles, shotguns and handguns?  Very likely they'll get their hands on something illegally anyway, but the selection would be more limited.

Also, as written, since there are no specified exceptions or conditions, does it suggest we the people should be able, given the financial means, to own F-15s, Abrams tanks, grenades, claymores, and howitzers if we want to?  Even nuclear weapons? In their day, I think a total balance is what the founders intended, since cannon and muskets were pretty much the most powerful weapons, and clearly their intent was to maintain power for the people to act as a check to the government.  However, those weapons did not grant individuals godlike power over life and death.  And neither do AR-15s, M4A1s, AK-47s, and MP5s,  I'm talking about heavy duty modern military artillery, aircraft, bombs, missiles, etc.
Is there a line to draw somewhere where maybe it's a good thing there are limits?  or no, no limit whatsoever?   Why or why not?
I'm not just spewing my opinion here because I see both sides of the argument, and I haven't formed a clear opinion myself. I'm a bit conflicted and trying to reconcile it all.
I'm being devil's advocate because it's a healthy discussion, but I'm no Fudd.  I guess on one hand, a limit at some point makes sense, but then the question becomes where to draw the line for that limit. And then you've set a precedent, which is bad. Personally I think I wouldn't want just anyone to acquire a nuclear weapon or an ICBM; but also I think the existing limitations/infringements already in place are too strict and unconstitutional. I sort of get the initial reasoning for the NFA from the era of gangsters handing the police and FBI their asses in bodybags, but then again the right answer was to better arm the police and FBI rather than strip all good people of those rights.
I do know that I do not want to fall into the trap of considering the Constitution a "living" document that can be changed; to hell with that, it stands as written. The founders had more sense than most modern people could dream of. But did they dream of the immense power modern weapons bring to bear?


Oh and the first one to reply, "Welcome fellow firearms enthusiast" can go fuck their half dead paraplegic aunt.
Shutting down open discussions like this is what the ATF wants.

"Just a serious question, how did they feel in that era about criminals?"

I am sure back then they just hung them.

Back then, if you fucked around, you found out.

We technically do own f16's, aircraft carriers, nukes, etc

Access, on the other hand....

No right is completely free from infringement.

Maybe out in the wild west, but they didn't use capital punishment for everything, there were loads of prisons and penitentiaries about.
Also, 5th amendment, so they were concerned for individual rights.

Punishment for most felonies then was death. Kinda hard for a corpse to wield a rifle. As an attorney and originalist, i dont believe they thought about. I have never read anything about it in the debates. My GUESS is that they expected felons—who were not executed but became part of society again—to do what everyone else did. Work. Support your family. Contribute to your community. Part of that would be a militia obligation, meaning “keep and bear arms.”  The founders would be shocked at the criminal subculture in our country now, and i bet if Madison saw it, he may AGREE with the felon
restriction NOW, as opposed to likely OPPOSING it (just my guess) in his own time.

I've heard people say this lately. I guess you're okay with things like not letting blacks vote then?

ETA: I apologize if I came off harsh, but seriously, if we allow infringements, where would it stop? The infringements are unconstitutional. Yes, they are infringed, but they shouldn't be.

Someone recently explained something to me that I had never heard before.

The bill of rights is the first ten amendments of the constitution, the purpose of those 10 amendments is to limit governments power.

I know I got the wording a little wrong, but it really hit me hard. Those amendments are for the sole purpose to limit the government from basically screwing us over. And here we are, a bunch of dumb mother F'ers letting them infringe those rights. We never should have given one inch!

To answer your question about felons. I read an article years ago in shotgun news by one of those lawyers that regularly writes articles in there. He said how we've all come to accept those laws, but where in the constitution does it say that? (It doesn't) it made me look at it differently. Honestly I don't give a rats ass if it were legal for felons to buy a gun (I think it should be legal). Never once have I said that I'm not afraid because I know the bad guy won't have a gun, I know they all already have a gun. I'd rather let everybody own guns, than to have all the bullshit rules that get us killed because we are unarmed.

Anyways, in the article I read he said what they are going to do is just make more and more people into prohibited person's. For example: ever used prescription pain meds? Can't own a gun. New Jersey already asks that question. Ever had PTSD? Can't own a gun.

Nothing in the constitution says that those rights don't apply to certain people. It's another infringement that we've allowed.

Sign petition to stop gun bill

Would have been easy to provide, "The keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed."  They didn't.

We should call a constitutional convention. Let the states determine how we want to be governed.

Tens of thousands of gun laws across the nation at fed, state and local levels proves that the bill of Rights means nothing today. The founders would be shocked at what has happened.

I've always believed that the phrase 'The People' refers to a limited set of citizens.  For example, neither negroes' nor imprisoned criminals' rights were protected, since they were not part of that subset.

You're right, it did.  

It didn't apply to women, either.  It only applied to free men.

The good ol days.