The second amendment, interpreted properly, means Joe Schmoe can have an Abrams in his garage.
And if his neighbors were unhappy with how he wanted to use it, they’d likely have their own Abramses too... the idea is that the posse comitatus would have whatever arms capability they wished.
My understanding is that, in the terms used at the time of drafting and ratification, “arms” meant any weapon that a common foot soldier could carry into battle, whereas “ordinance” is a reference to heavy weaponry, such as canon, which a common soldier could not carry into battle ...
Therefore, this would exclude any American citizen from, er-uh, “keeping and bearing” an Abrams Tank ... However, I see no problem with a 30 or 50 cal machine gun, bazooka, mortar, etc - since any of those could be carried by a common foot soldier ... Well, OK, the 50 cal would be a rather heavy piece of “arms” to carry around, unless you’re Rambo.
“The second amendment, interpreted properly, means Joe Schmoe can have an Abrams in his garage.”
That is arguably correct. A well ‘regulated’ militia no longer holds the meaning it did when written. Well ‘regulated’ mean’t ‘effective’. And yes, an effective militia would have an Abrams tank.
But that’s the problem. We might all want such things in our garage, but I don’t want a nuclear warhead in my neighbor’s garage. So we need a new amendment to clarify that if the Constitution is to be respected as-written.
Until we clarify the Constitution it will remain a ‘breathing’, evolving play-dough document.