Above all else when considering the operation of the Constitution I hold the principles of conferred powers and retained rights paramount.Do you believe - as some do - that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own any weapon they want?
Within the context of the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the provision. Neither is the right in any manner dependent on the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution generally) for its existence. The right exists because no power was ever conferred to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen . . .
So to start, I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment "gives" me anything.
Continuing with the principle of conferred powers and retained rights, "WE the People" conferred (surrendered) the powers "To declare war" and "To raise and support armies" etc, to the federal government through the Constitution and that includes the acquisition, ownership, maintenance and deployment of the weapons of war. The powers we granted to the federal government via the Constitution preempt all other entities from acting in similar fashion i.e., states or the people printing their own money, entering treaties with foreign nations or organizing and supporting their own army (this is also the doctrine at issue with the Arizona Immigration law SCOTUS heard arguments on last week).
This doctrine is evident in the Constitution and is actually applied to private citizens and it actually focuses on weaponry believe it or not.
During the Revolutionary War we had no real Navy but many private citizens outfitted ships into Man o' War's and "Privateers" harassed and seized over 600 British ships during the war.
After the war, in drafting the Constitution in Art I § 8 cl. 11 Congress was granted the power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" which were the official permissions and orders to operate these ships, which were the most devastating weapons of the day and again, were OWNED BY PRIVATE CITIZENS. The principle behind that reservation of power can certainly be extended into modern times to restrict the ownership by private citizens the armaments of war like fighter jets, tanks, missiles and rockets and cannon and other indiscriminate weapons and most certainly chem/bio/nuke WMD's even though the framers could not have imagined such weapons.
Since the right to own the major arms of war was surrendered, the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity from laws restricting their ownership.
A little bit on what's left . . .
I don't consider the right to arms to be absolute and the 2nd Amendment is not necessarily injured by state laws concerning concealed carry (although I would like to see Art IV enforced on the states) . I do consider open carry of legal firearms to be a 2nd Amendment right (and after McDonald, enforceable upon the states).
For other small arms the issue becomes a bit more complicated but I will say that the laws restricting the ownership (not banning) of full autos by private citizens could be sustained even under strict scrutiny if ever challenged. I would like to see the 1984 closure for new registrations of Title II firearms repealed.
IMNSHO, if there is any firearm that enjoys near absolute protection under the 2nd Amendment it is a semi-auto, hi-cap military style rifle in a military caliber, 5.56, .308, 7.62 (to name a few).