Not to pick on Timothy per se, but something he said in my comments appears to be a common theme amongst gun-control advocates
Our founding fathers, who had amazing foresight, could not anticipate the military power of future governments, such as our own.
Got that? The Founders were both brilliant and yet still so stupid that they couldn't possibly imagine that we'd evolve or that weapons would improve.
Of course, to believe this you have to buy into the false premise that the Founders wanted us to only be able to repel a government up to a particular size and when it grew too big you just had to don your big girl panties and deal with it.
I guess the problem with us gunnies is that we don't read English very well. When Tench Coxe said "every terrible implement of the soldier", what he actually meant was "only those weapons of the soldier that are small and not very effective since we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself".
Speaking of technological improvements, with guns there really hasn't been much. While communication such as the Internet, cell phones, and TV were not even imaginable by those back when the constitution was written, firearms haven't changed outside of improved reliability. Back then, they had pistols, shotguns, long rifles, and cannons. They were all deadly, just not as well made or reliable as those we have today. The basic design has not changed - a tube that a projectile is forced down via pressure from a propellant.
Regardless, I have yet to find a single instance of any writings by the Founding Fathers that state that there is a limit to what the populace could own. Why would the Founders, who had a distrust of standing armies, allow said armies to be able to over power the militia?