I'm confused. This sounds like a pro-unfettered-access-to-assault-rifles argument. (e.g. Man: But the founding fathers didn't intend for the Second Amendment to allow for access to instruments of mass casualty because they couldn't have foreseen the advancements that would be made to guns. Woman: I'm going to stop you right there trying to restrict my access to guns based on what you believe they intended. It says my right to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed. Period.)

Their intent was to create a living document that would make the US a nation of laws with guaranteed rights for all. To focus on the literal meaning of minutiae painfully applied to the modern world is deliberately misconstruing their intent.

It’s pretty clear what the document says.

It’s pretty clear how to modify the document.

Don’t like: Shall not be infringed?

Repeal the second amendment. 

They aren't here and they could not even have imagined the world as it is today. Coping with the challenges of today by limiting ourselves to past solutions doesn't even make any sense.

Maybe it’s time we all get over the Founding Fathers’ so-called intent? The Constitution, if it is to mean anything, should be a living breathing and constantly evolving document. Otherwise, one may just as well accept the Holy Bible as a foundational and fundamentalist document and be a religionist.