Here's something that occurred to me. What does "arms" mean?
If you interpret it hyper-literally, i.e. "What did the author mean when he wrote the word", then we're talking about muskets and canons.
If you interpret it conceptually, which is to say "Arms" means "whatever the current weaponry is", and if you further understand the overall goal to be the empowerment of the people against an oppressive state, then on what basis do you place <b>any</b> limits on the sort of weaponry people can possess?
I mean, a pistol isn't going to help me against a helicopter. But a stinger missile might. Why can't I own one?
A stinger isn't going to help me against an all out assault. For that I need nuclear weapons. If I can afford the materials, should I be free to build my own nukes?
The current interpretation that "right to bear arms" means "right to have guns, but only certain ones" seems pretty dang arbitrary.