The second amendment isn't about hunting or even about protecting your family and personal property (although I believe that the founding fathers would be amazed that there are places in the US where free people are constrained from doing either). It's about preserving people's freedom to throw off the shackles of an oppressive government. As such, people should be able to own current technology military-grade small arms. I also believe that they should be able to own handguns, although I think most soldiers would agree that you're better off carrying extra mags for your primary than the weight of a pistol and it's ammo.

For practical reasons, it's probably better if individuals don't have access to anti-armor/anti-aircraft missiles or to WMDs (I don't think the guy down the street should stockpile nerve gas canisters in his garage). I also think that local communities should be able to regulate what somebody may carry within an incorporated city, but not to restrict firearm ownership nor the transport of otherwise legal firearms within a secure case. Ammunition comparable to standard military small arms ammunition should not be restricted, although I believe exploding projectiles and those specifically designed as armor-piercing (not merely capable because they're more powerful than a .22LR) should be at least restricted, probably prohibited.

I don't believe that the government should have the power to easily take away the right of any free citizen to own a firearm (or to vote for that matter). If somebody is too unstable or dangerous to own a firearm, then they shouldn't be walking the streets. However, if the state cannot justify restricting an individual's other freedoms (such as freedom of speech), then why should it be allowed to violate their second amendment rights? It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges [that the state can take away on a whim].