Why is the right to bear arms interpreted as the right to carry firearms? Why not a sword, or a flintlock if you have to have a gun. Obviously we have restrictions on what we mean by arms. For example, as a private citizen you cannot own an armed jet fighter or tank. And nukes are probably so not happening.
On the other hand, if you walked down the street carrying a roman gladius, I suspect the police would want to chat to you.
So, we seem to have narrowed the scope of arms to be C20/21 firearms.
BTW, is ammunition covered under right to bear arms?