Yeah, I served in Armoured units as well as Inf, Engr and SF, so I know what you allude to. However, I still stand on the founders original meaning and intent; I am of the opinion that historical understadning of the term “arms” is critically important in application of the 2A.
Your tank, for instance, is not able to be used to any effect by one person (cannot drive or load/fire w/o changing positions etc), hence is a crew-served weapon system, somnething to which the application of the militia act of 1792 applies- milita, organized and unorganized are individuals, well regulated in use of (small) arms, tactics and operations; with units training on crew-served systems of public ownership. Let’s not try to invent something which was not meant by the writers. To do so would be as bad as the folks we are at odds with-they are attempting to do the same thing, just from a differnt ideology (everything is public, vice private).
I agree that every municipality, county, state etc should have an organized (not USARNG) element, plus unorganized rolls of all able-bodied (and able minded) volunteers) to guard the liberties of its citizens. Those who refuse service and ownership fo acceptable arms should be fined until they either participate or depart.
Many states still have militias that are not USARNG elements (which are really just part-time US Army units).
The major ordnance systems should be stored and accessible by those “UNITS”, not individuals, just as they were for decades, centuries prior to the Dick act of 1913 (IIRC the date) which created the USARNG from state organized militias.
Musters and drills should be routine for all able men (and women?)of like conscience. If we returned to this mode, we could likley do away with most if not all LE organizations, as the populace would be the true “posse commitatus” (power of the land) in lieu of government employees and the obvious alliances to the appointed offcials that pay them from the public coffers (think less taxes at every level as well). Paradigm shift of note. Then, freedom would be restored to a greater extent than possible under this current situation.
Revolutionary? Not really, this method was employed for centuries in Britain, and the colonies/states until the turn of the 20th century for the most part.
Sorry for the rambling and off-topic direction (and probable spelling errors, I hate spell check and my mind types faster than my fingers).
Molon Labe