In my opinion, the first argument here is totally wrong, on two counts:

1. I don't think the word "militia" was referring to the people-- as in, "only militias have the right to bear arms." Rather, "militia" was referring to the Federal Government's army. As I understand it, the catalyst that prompted what eventually became the "2nd amendment" was the States'-- the "anti-federalists"-- concerns that if this newly-proposed Federal government could raise its own militia, what would be the force that would "regulate" said militia? The answer: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note that it doesn't say "the militia" reserves the right-- it says "the people" reserve the right. Here is Alexander Hamilton clarifying my exact position in his own words:
   
   "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
   
   I could list a bunch of other quotes too. On top of it, in all of the debating, the newly-proposed Federal Government army is referred to as "the militia."


2. If the intent was to keep the Federal government's militia well regulated, then obviously "the people" would need arms powerful enough to keep this force in check. In present day terms, that would mean not only AK-47s, but missile launchers and aircraft carriers as well-- although how "the people" could raise enough funds to procure such heavy armament without resorting to theft-- oops, "taxes"-- like the Federal Government does is another question altogether.
   
   Here is a quote from Noah Webster proving my point; bold emphasis is mine:
   
   "Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Or, of course, you could just ignore everything I say above and, you know, actually read the text; emphasis is mine again:

"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."

Some people unintentionally misread the sentence, placing the emphasis in the wrong places. I can understand that; Old Tyme English sentences are frequently structured differently than how people write today. Although, I suspect other people deliberately misinterpret the intention of the amendment so they can try to diminish its effect in order to further centralize power, which they can then wield to push others around.