okay, you are arguing some good points. but does that mean, using your definition, that all arms of war can be owned by private citizens, without exclusion or infringement, even shoulder fired ground to air missile systems, bazookas, land mines, cannons, tanks, etc? if not, why not?
What it means to me is:
Government cannot restrict the right of citizens to own "arms of war." Note that guns when the Constitution were the basic "arms of war."
The Founders foresaw that things could change and gave us a process to amend it. That process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. It is NOT 50% + 1 and it is NOT 5/9. So if you want to alter the second, propose what you think are reasonable changes and let's publicly debate them.
Also, that you have a right to own a weapon doesn't give you a means to own it. Government is not required to acquire or sell you arms. The 2nd does not say you have a right to acquire any arms you want, it tells government to stay out of it.
It's pretty clear that's what it says this:
Militias are necessary for the right of a free State. That means both security from foreign States and just as if not more importantly from our own State (The Federal government, this is very clear in their personal writings). Militias are defined by the people.
Therefore,
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right protected is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
George Washington: (when asked to be king) Why exchange one tyrant for another?
Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be fed occasionally with the blood of tyrants and patriots
Founding fathers generally: An armed population is the first defense against tyranny
People no longer fear the government, which is why government no longer fears the people and why it's able to remove us of one liberty after another.
Does citizens having bazookas concern me? Sure. Does government's ability to remove any weapon they decide to ban scare me more? You betcha