The 2nd amendment was meant to insure that citizens could possess weapons sufficient to confront a trained army.
In my mind this should be interpreted in that you should be able to own anything up to and including a heavy machine gun, bazooka or even artillery.
At one time, you could, and people did...then a bunch of nannies....
do not forget tanks, aircraft and warships ( if you can afford them ) most libs would be stunned to learn that during and after the revolutionary war, the fledgling United States LEASED warships from private owners ... same with cannon...
hell, in some ways the colonists pre-revolution had more freedom than we do now...
What Scalia said on FOX this last weekend was his interpretation of "bear arms" meant what a single citizen could carry. Which would be the same as what a foot soldier would be able to carry. As for ships and artillery (18th century or today) acquisition of those would require a FAIR FIGHT between the now rogue tyrant militia of the federal government and the new revolutionary civilian militia. No one wants massive destructive weapons in the hands of the Chicago SEIU or ACORN, or the TEA party. Those will have to be fought for and won. It will be mess, costly and very bloody but revolutions are just that. But it it the common citizen that must have an EQUAL fighting chance against federal foot soldiers. They knew back then that urban sniper and terror tactics can defeat even the largest and best equipped armies.