Why not go back to the "arms" to which the founding fathers referred when they said we had the right to arm bears? Muskets and cannons?

Erm - you do know that the army has tanks, and JSF-35s, and bazookas, and drones, right? You're bringing guns to a drone fight.
The argument won't wash, the Second Amendment was written because the USA DIDN'T have a standing army to defend herself, so militias had to be available. This isn't the case any more, so the 2nd is an anachronism.

:):):)

The 2nd is not going anywhere. It is an individual right as confirmed more than once by the SCOTUS.  It is part of the Bill of Rights which lists our rights as individuals.  
I know people who own tanks.   If the gov became tyrannical the people having arms is a protection. And if the people stood up we will see who keeps control of the drones etc. 

Jefferson sums it up well:

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, the sex slave owner. Had children by her. You're quoting a filthy hypocrite.

You may want to look up the history of Jefferson. A great Founding Father of  this Great Nation. 

• In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Jefferson held: “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.”
• In his letter to Brissot de Warville, February 11, 1788, Jefferson wrote: “You know that nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition not only of the trade but of the condition of slavery: and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that object.”

Jefferson not only condemned institutional slavery but he followed up on it:

• in 1783 he submitted a bill to Congress that would free all slaves by 1800;
• in 1807 he signed into legislation elminating the Atlantic slave trade, the law that outlawed the importation of African slaves. Although it did not end slavery, this significant piece of legislation highlighted Jefferson’s opposition to slavery.

He inherited slaves and under Virginia law was unable to free them because of debt from the Revolutionary war.

He. Impregnated. His. Female. Slave. Not once, but several times. She had no choice but to "degradingly submit" to her "unremitting despot" (and an adulterer, the man was married).
He may have WRITTEN that stuff. He didn't DO it. Do as I say, not as I do. Hypocrisy. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at October 1, 2020 10:43 PM MDT

Not an adulter his wife had died. 
We were not there. For all we know if it had been a different time the two would have wed after his first wife's death. We do know that the 2 slaves whom he allowed to "escape" and the 2 he was able to free in his will were her children.
She worked as a free woman in Paris for Jefferson. And agreed to come to the colonies as a slave and even negotiated the terms for herself and any unborn children in the future.
To me this sounds like a relationship that started in Paris and continued in the colonies. But as the times were then could only be hidden by her being as slave. This would also prevent her from being forced into slavery on another person's plantation in VA. This post was edited by my2cents at October 2, 2020 5:20 AM MDT

If he gave a damn about her, he'd have stayed in Paris, where mixed-race marriages were perfectly acceptable (Alexandre Dumas was of mixed race, having a petit-noble white father and a Moorish mother).

To stay in France, a man who just founded a new country based on freedom of religion? In France where before their revolution was Catholic required (for a marriage to be recognized it must be Catholic...Jefferson was not Catholic) and afterwards tried to make the Republic the religion.  No, I do not think so.

But whatever his personal issues were....he was correct about our rights. Our inalienable rights given by our Creator. 2nd amendment listing our God given right to defend ourselves from our enemies. 

You realize small, highly-mobile forces that can hide among the civilian population have always had an advantage against large militaries?
Guerilla warfare has been quite successful, when employed against regular military.
Even the Colonies were more successful using such tactics than they were using the Continental Army, during our Revolution.
In modern times ... we have examples from Vietnam through Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, our Supreme Court has actually ruled that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to own military-grade weapons.
Most people overlook that part, when talking about the ruling on "sawed off" shotguns.
The court (erroneously) basically ruled that "since such weapons aren't used in war, they aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment".
(of course, "sawed off" shotguns were used in WW1 as "trench sweepers")