[tacticalogic]

Or is the right to individually own arms subject to reasonable limitations as defined by the State or if the Commerce Clause is invoked, by the Federal Government?

The first, maybe. As for the second, I'll defer to the writings of James Madison (the author of the clause) on the subject:

1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.

2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

18 Sept. 1828

[P-Marlowe]

So if reasonable limitations are acceptable for the states to impose on their citizens in regard to the type of arm that individual citizens are allowed to own, then what is the beef with Arnold? Is he not proposing "reasonable" limitations on the types of arms that individual citizens can personally own and if we disagree with those regulations are we not free to petition the state for a change in those restrictions?

If it is conceeded that I am not allowed to own a 50mm cannon, then the second amendment does not protect my right to own any specific type of arm. The second amendment is therefore satisfied as long as, after all reasonable restrictions have been placed upon me, I am reasonably left with a weapon sufficient to protect my life, my family and my property.

I would think that a shotgun would be more than sufficient for such a task and that there is therefore no constitutional necessity or right for me to own a handgun or a semi-automatic projectile emitting armament of any kind.