Awesome post.
The only thing I could add are on this statement:
post #13 by discntnt_irny_srcsm: Historically the line between standard military arms such as shoulder fired rockets and civilian semi-auto rifles and handguns has moved as to what is permissible/legal. A hundred years ago hardware stores sold Thompson submachine guns. That no longer happens. Case law and state and federal laws have clearly delineated civilian arms.
As you make clear the RKBA is an original, fully retained right; no aspect of the possession and use of the personal arms of the private citizen was ever conferred to he federal government (which is to say, never surrendered by the citizen, "We the People" ).
The obverse to that tenet is that "We the People", when empowering the federal government
did surrender some specific limited powers over
some arms, specifically the weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare. In the founding period private citizens owned warships, through the Constitution that power of citizens to maintain and sail a warship was conferred to Congress in Art I, §8, cl. 11; "Congress shall have the power: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".
I would argue the principle behind that grant of power is extended through the other (supreme / preemptive) war powers, and the power claimed by Congress to set the rules for the acquisition, possession and use of modern weapons of war like "shoulder fired rockets" (bazookas & RPG's) all the way up to NBC's, by private citizens, are legitimate.
The argument for blanket justification of the limits created by NFA-34 on machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, SBR's/AOW's, is weaker given
Miller, but of course
Heller diluted that with the elevation, if not making primary over military usefulness, the "common use" protection criteria.
YMMV . . .
= new reply since forum marked as read