I have seen claims from people on both sides of the political spectrum which are completely false concerning the second amendment. From the left I hear that it refers to inaccurate muskets. But, by the time the amendment was written, rifling was definitely a thing—guns were fairly accurate. From the right... well they seem to think it has to do wit guns. But, of course, "arms" doesn't mean guns.
Arms (armament) is any kind of weaponry. Say, for instance, nuclear armament, tanks, or a misplaced thumb in what had promised to otherwise be a very sexy evening. Furthermore, the context of this amendment is defending ourselves from the government, should it prove to get too big, stupid, or look at you funny.
Now, I don't care if you have the most automaticky of all the guns, but I don't think it's going to be very useful in overthrowing a modern government. So, a literal reading would leave us with that the second amendment no longer refers to guns at all. "Arms" should be interpreted in modern terms; just like when we read "all me are created equal" we now interpret "men" as "OK, black people too."
So, then, to really understand our second amendment rights, the question is what can overthrow the government. I'd say definitely nuclear weapons. So, there's no doubt in my mind that we should be allowed those. At minimum, however, we should be protected in our right to operate a fleet of tanks. Admittedly, it will be hard to overthrow the U.S. government with such a fleet. But, if enough of us have enough tanks, I think we can do it. And, therefore, fleets of tanks should be, without a doubt, protected.
Basically, I want a tank.