I agree with you. The right clearly pertains to the people, not to some sort of standing militia.
But there is a more interesting issue, I think, and one that is not at all settled. And it defies black-and-white thinking. Which means alot of people won’t like to think about it at all.
The issue is, “What arms?” And I don’t think the founding fathers give us much to go on either. Was the original intention of the 2nd that the people be allowed to keep a musket, flintlock pistol, tomahawk, knife, and perhaps a military-style sword only? How about cannon? How about a warship? I suspect the original intention contained no restriction with respect to type of arms. Certainly, the language of the ammendment contains no such restriction.
But we have all accepted a de facto infringement, and one which is probably quite necessary. Let’s get absurd. Does an individual have the right to possess an atom bomb? Why not? It is a form of arms, no doubt. Should he have the right?
Okay. Nobody’s arguing for that. Except me maybe. Well let’s move to Abrams tank. Same questions as above. MLRS, mortars, howitzers, frags, chain-guns, air-superiority fighter jets, automatic weapons, semi-automatics with big magazines, with collapsible stocks, with pistol grips, with more effective ammuniation. Why do we have the right to keep and bear some arms and not others?
You can make a pretty good argument that an *atom bomb* is not a *weapon* per se but a form of ammunition, some types of which can indeed be limited by treaty or law as inappropriate for militia usage.
Militia units and individuals might thereby have the means to deliver such ammunition, via aircraft, missile or some light artillery launchers, but their ammunition therefor would be limited to conventional warheads, unless some very drastic circumstances required otherwise.
Neither is the cost and proper maintenance of nuclear ordnance inconsiderable.
Very clearly they meant for individuals to have cannon and ships of war, since the constitutional authorization for letters of Marque, and Privateers made it clear that some citizens would possess such equipment and resources, and that the private warfighting services of those businessmen could be purchased or leased as a function of government.
Aircraft carriers offer technological advances not really anticipated by the constitutional drafters, but back in the 1990s I used to put on a briefing [dressed in period uniform] of current USAF capabilities for George Washington's staff officers:
Now I got to let you in on a secret boys, and you'll think I'm funnin' you, but it's so: we got wagons what can fly. I know you can see the good of this....