You're turning "original intent" on its head. The fact that machine guns didn't exist in 1792 doesn't mean they are subject to government control. It means that they aren't.
You're take on original intent would saddle us with protection for muskets but not for modern self-loading handguns.
Similarly, original intent regarding "the people" and the right to keep and bear arms would include anybody who had an enforceable right to self defense. Once the courts brush away the "collective rights" nonsense and the idea that "the right of the people" is simply a right of a militia or the right of a state, what remains is an individual right to keep and bear arms for one's self, one's family, one's community, and one's nation.
Where do you get that? "Arms" are Militia-type arms. That's the original meaning. Even the Miller court acknowledged that.
Where do you get your definition of arms from?
"would include anybody who had an enforceable right to self defense."
The second amendment? Self defense? I don't know what you're smokin'.
"Once the courts brush away the "collective rights" nonsense and the idea that "the right of the people" is simply a right of a militia or the right of a state, what remains is an individual right to keep and bear arms for one's self, one's family, one's community, and one's nation."
Well sure, once all that nasty old militia nonsense is brushed away and we go with the living constitution version ....