I just happen to disagree with the slim majority of judicial activist's interpretation of the 2nd. I don't believe the Founders intended to extend the ownership "right" of weapons of war to the individual; clearly you and many other Merkins do. I'm more than happy to respectfully disagree....
If you look at the weapons they had at the time then they absolutely did intend that weapons of war be held in private hands. That particular philosophy extended back in time to the English yeomen and was bought completely by the Founding Fathers. Why?
Because the Founding Fathers opposed the creation of a professional standing army. They thought that under most circumstances a well-armed citizenry would substitute well under most circumstances for a standing army. But if an army needed to be raised it was addressed by the constitution but had to be re-authorized every 2 years (which is why defense authorization bills last 2 years under most circumstances).
This is also why the militia was encoded into the constitution as a right of free individuals to form a militia without the permission of the central government or any other government -- the stipulation being that it should be well run.
It is a separate and extremely important issue that you bring-up concerning MODERN weapons of war. I do not believe that many normal people would argue the need for private citizens to own modern self-propelled howitzers. And if they did make that argument and pointed to the 2nd Amendment I think most people would agree that the argument is fallacious. None of the rights of individuals spelled-out in the constitution are absolute. Congress & the Supreme Court and the citizens have since the inception recognized that the rights of individuals come into conflict with each other. We have a large system of laws written to address those instances.
For example, we have freedom of the press. It extends up to libel. But at some point, a free press does have an obligation to tell the truth about individuals or at least be able to demonstrate that the published information could be construed as believable to a jury of peers. It does little harm to the press that the right of an individual to his good name overwhelms the right of the press to print whatever they wish.
I think reasonable people could easily make a similar argument regarding weapon ownership and carrying. In fact, the majority of the justices said almost exactly that in their opinion.