[Question_Assumptions]

I think I would limit it to arms that a person could bear but would have to look at the 18th Century meaning of "arms" to be certain. It would also not cover any arms prohibited to the US by treaties, since Article VI makes treaties the "supreme law of the land" along with the Constitution and laws passed at the federal level.

[vincentfreeman]

"I think I would limit it to arms that a person could bear"

If the citizen militia was to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", you feel they could do this with arms limited to those which a person could bear?

I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Does the second amendment protect an individual right for self defense or was it written to protect the right of the citizens, collectively, to form a well regulated (organized and armed) state militia?

It seems like you want to say it does both, but then you're forced to come up with a definition of "arms" that I don't see in the second amendment. Perhaps if it said "firearms" I might agree with your interpretation.