The key here is "well regulated militia", while I believe they would have expected/required/desired the militia to have equivalent arms, they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms. I believe that is where the 2nd amendment is weak as it pertains to civilian privileges of arms, and subsequently is at risk.
Wrong. The key here is the right of the PEOPLE
, not the right of the militia. The regulated militia would be chosen from the armed populace
Why does everybody seem to agree the word PEOPLE means everybody in all amendments except the Second?