Here's a hypothetical ...
Assume you believe that the 2nd Amendment ONLY Guarantees the unrestricted right to arms to those who are a member of 'An Official Militia.'
The VA Constitution states ...
"XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."When this was written, the phrase 'well regulated' meant 'well operating' NOT Government Controlled.
I am a person, living in VA, therefore, I am among 'the body of the people.'
I am 'trained to arms' meaning I both own firearms and am skilled in using them.
IOW, myself and most all firearms owners in the Commonwealth and other states with similar clauses ARE a Constitutionally Recognised 'official' Militia.
In light of the above, AND
Since the Commonwealth recognises my status as a Militia Member, why should I not be permitted ANY KIND OF MILITARY WEAPON I CHOOSE - and yes, that means a fully armed Tank if I could afford one.
I'm just curious as to your thinking. Can you have it both ways?