I'm using it to argue constitutional literalism which protects arms, not guns. Arms being any implement of war. You're supposed to have explosives and vehicle mounted machine guns. In fact the idea of a government army supplying weapons was not unheard of in their day. Surely England and France did it. The fact that the Founding Fathers saw you being armed as being necessary to government having access to weapons means they intended their government to not have any. The second amendment isn't just about you being able to have a hunting rifle. It's about how the government is meant to procure arms. You are supposed to have fighter jets because the government isn't. If anything you should have shit they don't have. This also gives people the ability to veto war. Wouldn't that be good right now. Maybe we wouldn't be giving surface to air missiles to Ukraine if we the people knew that wasn't a good idea and refused to hand ours over.