There's room for opposing opinions. But you don't get to have your own set of facts.
Your sentence that I highlighted in this post is very clearly self-contradictory. This is similar to what anti-gunners claimed about "people" in the Second Amendment; that it only includes members of an organized Militia.
Perhaps you might at least recognize that my "opinion" of the Second Amendment is completely consistent with the claim that you are limiting the scope of the protection.
My bottom line is that there is no practical limit to the weapons I would use to protect myself, my family, my community, or my nation. Infringing my right to keep or bear such weapons simply makes it more difficult. It's very similar to the situation the Founders were addressing with the Second Amendment. It shouldn't be necessary for me to steal weapons from my enemies or from anyone else in order to protect myself from such enemies.
I was not imposing my own facts, specifically pointing out that this was opinion. My belief is that the militia is everyone able to bear arms. Further, I believe that the 2dA contains two clauses, one that protects the militia from government infringement, and a second that protects the RKBA from government infringment. I also believe the government has gone to great lengths to infringe upon both of those rights.
I concur that your opinion of the 2dA is far more broad than my interpretation, but neither of which are supportive of government restriction. I am simply of the opinion that the FF's designed the 2dA to protect the most sustainable form of weaponry available to the common man. Whether they envisioned WMDs or not is beyond the scope of our discussion, but an interesting one none the less.
Finally, please forgive my screed of the previous post. I interpreted your comments as an insult where one may not have existed. For that, I apologize.