if you actually read the Second Amendment, it clearly states this first-
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
If you know anything about legal terms and legal writing, whatever is stated first in any decree is considered the most important, and that which follows, secondary...obviously. What the Founding Fathers clearly wrote is that because this nation, without a large standing army, needs a well-regulated militia force, in order to protect ourselves from hostile forces, a deterrent force, and it is necessary to our security for such a force to exist...AND THE REST OF THE AMENDMENT- the right of the people (in these well-regulated militias so necessary to our security) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. IT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT CITIZENS HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN..OWN..AND BEAR ARMS.
Makes sense. That is the same as saying soldiers should be able to keep and bear arms. Or even police. Anyone in a well regulated militia or well organized force that is necessary to the security of the state. See how it does not even state "own" arms, just "keep." And notice how it says arms, not guns. Arms means every type of weapon that can be used in war...BUT WHO BELIEVES AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN SHOULDER FIRED GROUND TO AIR MISSILES AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS? using your bizarre reading of the Second Amendment, why would those weapons be outlawed? or land mines? or bazookas?