Sure. If you live above the tree line. But if you choose to live among others in a society, then society decides which weapons, if any, you may use to defend yourself and under what conditions you may use them.
As to the definition of "arms" in the second amendment, the answer is simple -- whatever your state deems necessary to form a well regulated Militia.
Yes, yes, we're already quite aware that you love The State and hate the rights of the individual, and that your only concern every day is how the National Government can more efficiently and effectively control us.
It's actually a little tiresome to hear you chime in with your 'Ein Reich -- Ein Fuhrer' chants.
Two points...
1. You pass over the very strong possibility that the term "regulate" was not used in its modern sense.
2. How can you justify the use of the very clear phrases "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" to mean "State government actually should control"?
The interpretation of the Second Amendment that makes the most sense is that the people should regulate the militia themselves, so that their right would not be infringed, and so that the militia would be well-drilled and ready. No other interpretation reconciles the opening and closing clauses of the Second Amendment. No other interpretation adheres to the Constitution's central tenet of limited powers for the government and expanded freedoms for the people. No other interpretation recognizes the historical reality that the entire adult male population basically was " the militia".
(Why is it that even we rabidly-right-wing freedom-lovers seem to think "government-first" when we talk about a body being "regulated"? Do we have no faith in individual citizens anymore???)