I think you have it backwards; honest, rational people understand it is the textbook definition of lunacy to argue for civilian access to any weapon available to the military. That is why, for instance, you can't legally purchase and own an atomic bomb. To argue the definition of arms is, for all time, that general notion that may have been shared by a majority of the drafters of the constitution is to deceive the general public into believing there can never, under any circumstances, be any changes in how the constitution is interpreted. That simply is not the case, as evidenced by the reality of life in these United States, and to suggest otherwise is yet another textbook definition, this time, of obfuscation.
If the founders were unreasonable and thought the constitution was subject only to application and never interpretation then both you and quietmike might be correct. It defies logic, however, that the founders, so brilliant in the creation of such a document, would have been so obtuse as to think their interpretation would, for all time, be the only legitimate interpretation. Or, that parts of the constitution wouldn't have to be interpreted in light of societal changes over time. To do otherwise would be to make the future the slave of the past and I don't think they would have intended to hamstring our republic in such a fashion.