Limits on who? Yes, I agree. And we have those, for the most part.
Limits on what firearms they can own? Nope.
Yes, they had muskets instead of M16s or AR15s (the civilian equivalent, without the capability to switch to automatic fire). Both were military weapons.
As for AKs, well it didn't do too well for the Russians. Those are spray and pray firearms - put out a lot of bullets and hope you hit something because accuracy is not they strong point. We beat them in that capacity with M14, M16 and even the M1-Garand.
I read something that said that the Second Amendment was based on the "antiquated" notion that the population would be able to protect against a rogue government that would defy and overrule the Constitution. It was basically put in place to be a fourth check and balance. I don't see anything antiquated about that notion. Especially when we see an example of a ruler who is making his own county's constitution obscolete so he can maintain power (Vasquez, not Bush
Can we, the population take the miltary? Well, we may not have airplanes and tanks, but the heart of the military is the infantry. And even with hunting and self-defense weapons we could put up a hell of a good fight. And that's not counting the number in the military who would go against a rogue leader intent on harming the civilian population.