The second amendment is all that is left of a philosophy about how the national defense should be done. Originally the intent was that there would be no standing army because it would be too dangerous to democracy. In cases of emergency the militia (armed citizens) would be called upon to defend the nation. It would make perfect sense to have all the necessities for fighting a defensive war in private hands.

Even second amendment supporting politicians don't want the public to have access to high powered sniper rifles and plastic explosives.

One thing that always amused me to death is how firearms are banned from the Republican convention.

Odd example, only a small handful of states restrict 50 BMG rifles e.g. "high powered sniper rifles", and basically none restrict the normal sort of rifles that would normally be used by snipers. You can even go over 50 calibre with a background check and a tax stamp.

Even with plastic explosives, basically anybody who isn't a fugitive, convicted felon or a drug user is allowed to get a federal license for explosives.

I was wondering if I'd get this argument :-)

I guess it comes down to how you define "arms" and I'm not a constitutional scholar. So: you do you, enjoy your tank :-)

And if you haven't seen it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(film)