Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,
“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to
the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions
written in the 18th century or the first two decades
of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those
formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying
a weapon in an organized military unit.
“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure
a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless
unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves
in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this
privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose
themselves in military force against the usurpations of
government, as well as against enemies from
without, that government is forbidden by any law or
proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and
bear arms. . . .
I've selected a few portions of the decision.
This holding is not only consistent with, but positively
suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual
right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that
“have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia
Basically, it states specifically and, IMO, unequivocally that citizens have a RIGHT to own "warlike" weapons.