I just skimmed it, but I would point out the following since your friend is very focused on the historical implications of the 2nd Amendment.
First, most firearms of that era were not breech loading, they were muzzle loaded. Modern firearms are mostly breech loading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_weapon
Thus, I can imply your friends actual knowledge of both history and firearms is very limited.
Second, breech loading firearms were not outside of the founders experience when crafting the 2nd Amendment as they were invented approx. in the 14th Century (assuming the wikipedia link is accurate, but this really is a minor point).
Third, the concept of cartridge to aid in the rapid reloading of a firearm pre-dates our country by centuries as well. In fact, the common muskets of the era typically used cartridges. Granted the technology for the modern variant of the cartridge happened a bit later, but it did happen within one generation of the Revolution. Namely, percussion caps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29
Most importantly, we should look at the arms the Colonists actually did have and use not just during the Revolution, but the War of 1812 since presumably they'd have had time to sort out what the 2nd Amendment practically meant by then. During the Revolution, the Colonists had only a relative few of the current military arms. However, the rifles they possessed were actually superior to the average military arm in many ways. This is not unlike today where civilians have a whole host of common chambering and enhancements that while the modern military could use they choose not to due to cost and the general lack of training with small arms (outside of our most elite units). Furthermore, they had much, much more than that. When the British were marching on Lexington and Concord, it wasn't just to capture some hunting rifles. The British were mostly interested in the large cannons, including mobile variants, along with the huge powder (not measured in pounds, but barrels for such cannons) and shot (not measured in grains, but actual pounds). These cannon were capable of bombarding a city like Boston from long range. For all intents and purposes these were modern artillery; the logical ancestors of things like the 105s and 155s we use today...including the mobile variants. The few cannons the British did capture were because the roads/weather made it near impossible to move due to their size and weight. Just in case it's not clear, the British were not searching for private hunting or home defense rifles, they were searching for military supplies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_ ... a_supplies
Things didn't change much for the following generation, nor did they try to change it. The only Federal firearm law from the founding until 1934 was a militia regulation which requires the keeping of military arms, not the prohibiting thereof. Second Militia Act of 1792:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 (please note, one YEAR after the Second Amendment was ratified!).
During the War of 1812, there warships called Privateers (existed during the Revolution too, but much more limited), which were really private ships armed with sea going cannons/artillery. Literally, the modern equivalent of a privately owed destroyer. Generally, we didn't have large warships, even as a country, until much later (huge cost) and those would basically be the logical equivalent of a modern battleship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer
The examples go on and on that the Founders intended the people to possess military arms so that their government could never become tyrannical or at least they'd have a fighting chance. Besides, governments typically care very little about people hunting and defending themselves, but they care greatly about any arms that may in the future be used to contest their unlawful power grabs. The 2nd Amendment, as a prohibition against government, only makes sense in this way. If they had intended for the people to only possess hunting or self-defense arms, they could and would have said so. However, they intentionally used words like militia and bearing of arms as military terms. It's absurd to suggest that an Amendment supposedly specifying rights retained by the people (as the rest do, except the 10th) would permit or grant the government the power to possess arms itself in a military function. Even the leading common-law and VA constitutional law scholar of the founders era (so much so that it is THE reference SCOTUS uses for original intent) stated:
In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution
The Second Amendment is under attack and will remain so until we reclaim it's original intent. It's not about your hunting rifles, although they are covered. It's not about your CC handgun, but that's covered too. The intent always was for law abiding Americans to own military arms to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing the people, PERIOD. Until we unite and win on that principle, this insidious debate will continue on and we will continually be enslaved bit by bit.
