"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY Of A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I put the first half in caps as, though I'm not an English Major, it seems clear to me the Founding Fathers were depending upon an organized and trained organization to fend off invaders.
I doubt the vast majority of those that insist they are entitled to military weaponry are a part of any such group. They simply focus on the second part of the declaration.
Most of the guys I grew up with in the Eureka area were hunters. Shotguns and 22 caliber rifles were used for rabbits, squirrels, pheasants, ducks,etc.
Come deer season they bought slugs for their shotguns, and those that could afford them bought a "deer rifle," typically a 30-30 carbine. They would take it out to the quarry, and if they could hit a garbage can cover at 50 yards felt they were 'sighted in.' When the season closed they would clean and oil it and put it away for a year. None that I know of belonged to a Militia, regulated or otherwise.
And anybody who needs a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer doesn't belong in the woods; indeed shouldn't be issued a license! A single tour in the Marine Corps during the Korean War hardly makes me a military genius, but I feel certain any future war will not be waged with conventional weapons.
In this high tech era an enemy will be attempting to take out our electrical grids, communication and transportation systems, water and fuel supplies; in short, bringing everything to a standstill. Perhaps using pin-point laser guided missals and drones with biological, chemical or nuclear warheads.
Pretty scary. Assault rifles? Might as well have a sling-shot. It is also my opinion that, for the average person, a shotgun and/or pistol is a far more suitable choice for self protection. After all, Matt Dillon tamed Dodge with a six-gun!