Things that make Fonzie say, "hmmmm...."

I agree wholeheartedly with all the points you just made.
I own guns. Quite a few in fact. Hunting guns, sporting guns, personal defense guns and those I classify as "Zombie apocalypse" guns. I am proficient in there SAFE use and storage.
I have never had to use a gun in self defense and pray that I never will. I really, honestly don't believe that I will ever have to use a gun to ACTIVELY defend against a tyrannical government (deterence is another matter).
What I cannot abide is someone telling me I cannot possess these guns because they don't like them for whatever reason.

Do you belong to the NRA?

"For whatever reason"? Hmm, what an odd thing to show confusion over.

There's only one reason being advanced for banning certain guns. That reason is that some guns are just too damn efficient at helping people kill other people. They're fantastic tools, they really make people good at killing. Too good, frankly, for civilization's taste.

Well, most civilizations at least. Including this one, by a healthy 56-39 margin, says one poll today.

That's the only reason ever advanced, just that one, shouldn't be any confusion really.

DonDiego respectfully disagrees. DonDiego asserts that the intent of the writers is a valid consideration in interpreting the application of the Constitution.

The Constitution is not an inconsequential document. The Founding Fathers were earnest gentlemen who took the writing of the Constitution seriously.
DonDiego has no doubt every statement was written with an intent in mind, i.e. that the writings would have the consequences which these men intended.

Consideration of intent may not be easy or definitive. F'rinstance, there may be no documentary evidence of any writer's intent. Or there may be several intents documented possessed by different contributor's to the Constitution, or even different intents possessed by a single contributor.
And consideration of intent does not assure accuracy. As ken2v asserts, different individuals may interpret intents honestly but differently, . . . or they may misinterpret them, . . . or they may misinterpret them intentionally to support an opinion already held.

Nonetheless, the above reservations do not render consideration of intent meaningless. Where intent is clear it should be a significant consideration. Where it is not clear whether by honest interpretation or intentional mischief, it will have less significance.
[n.b. DonDiego recognizes judicial interpretation is not a precise science and not, necessarily, an honest one. Judges can intentionally misinterpret the Law and the Constitution out of prejudice or for self-aggrandizement or even to damage the authority of the document. Such behavior is odious, . . . but it is a reflection of deficiencies in the process of electing/selecting judges not a condemnation of consideration of intent in interpreting the Constitution. DonDiego opines Justice Ginsberg is mistaken in dismissing such consideration.]

Consider ken2v's examples:
__Gay Marriage. So far as DonDiego knows the Founding Fathers did not consider sexual preference in the Constitution, . . . so intent is absent. At the time of the Founding Fathers laws against homosexuality were the norm; homosexuals could not marry. So far as DonDiego knows no Federal Judge has discovered a Constitutional Right to same-sex marriage, deferring to State Court rulings on the matter. So far.
__Abortion. Again the Founding Fathers did not mention abortion in the Constitution. Abortion was not uncommon at the time of the Founding Fathers. And again, Federal Judges usually deferred to State Laws on the issue. Until Roe v Wade in which a "right to privacy" was cited as the rationale.
__Busing. The Founding Fathers did not discuss busing in the Constitution, . . . nor in the 13th Amendment.
__National Health Care. The Founding Fathers did not discuss National Health Care in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled the Health Care for America Plan constitutional. DonDiego expects socialized one-payer national health care is inevitable.
__Japanese Internment. DonDiego would've supposed that the un-constitutionality of this process would have been found somewhere in Amendments Four through Nine. But it wasn't; citing the exigencies of war, the Supreme Court upheld the internment in Korematsu v US. The ruling was later reversed.
__Limits on Presidential Terms. Not in the Constitution; installed by the 22nd Amendment.
__Prohibition of Alcohol. Not in the Constitution; installed by the 18th Amendment; removed by the 21st Amendment.
In summary on consideration of intent:
__There is no mention of Gay Marriage, Abortion, Busing, or National Health Care in the Constitution; thus there is no intent to be considered. This does not mean the Constitution does not apply, just that the Founding Fathers' intent is not available.
__Presidential Terms and Prohibition were achieved through Constitutional Amendment, so the Founding Fathers' intent has no bearing. Whatever the Founding Fathers intent, the Constitution was changed.
__Japanese Internment. DonDiego says: based on the Constitution and based and on documented opinions of the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding imprisonment, this procedure is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, it was ruled constitutional, but later reversed on the grounds of "racial bias".

So, only one of the issues involved intent, . . . and that decision was reversed.

DonDiego supposes similar "wartime considerations" might well trump the Founding Fathers' intent, if internment ever resumes. DonDiego counsels the reader to avoid internment if possible, . . . even if it is ruled constitutional.
DonDiego also counsels American-citizen readers to avoid drone strikes, . . . even if the White House orders one. [As far as DonDiego knows, President Obama has no knowledge of DonDiego; DonDiego suspects President Obama would not like him.]

Stuff happens.

On Firearms.
There's lots of documentation pertaining to the Founding Fathers' intent with regard to the "right to bear arms". It is clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend to restrict firearms ownership to members of a militia, . . . or restrict their use to sport-shooting and hunting. The intent was firearms for personal self-defense and defense of the Country (in a militia). Many Founding Fathers added defense against a tyrannical government as well within their writings.
The reader can look it up, . . . and make up his own mind, . . . or he can believe whatever he wants. Machts nichts to poor old DonDiego.

As ken2v says: "Opinions can and should differ." DonDiego says: "Opinions can differ, and some pr'bly should differ."

Ken, you have my thoroughly confused. Are you for guns or against guns??? ... Stick with the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method in the future.

Actually, the founders were very clear on the right to bear muskets and flintlock pistols.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with Perry v. Brown, a 2012 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal court) which did precisely that. After a lower federal court did so too.

In Perry, the court found that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection rights afforded all Americans by the US Constitution. In the words of the court:

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples . . . .

The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."

Very significant case, lots of media attention, quite well known.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Justice Scalia

I agree with Justice Scalia there. Our well-regulated militias that serve to secure our free states should not be limited to antiquated weapons. Their job is important and they deserve modern firearms.

Whether every schmuck with his ex-wife's debit card and enough gas to get to WalMart has a constitutional right to those same weapons is a different question.

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Justice Scalia