Although it is fun to speculate about what the Founders might have done differently if they could have seen the future, occasionally you run up against some law which they formulated perfectly, such as the 2nd Amendment. It could not be improved upon, except perhaps by being carved into Mount Rushmore or branding it into the foreheads of every lawyer and politician.
The intention of the amendment was to ensure that private citizens could own and operate (without oversight) the exact same sort of weapons and tools of war that could ever possibly be used against anyone. In our day, this would include everything up to tanks, subs, destroyers, and fighter jets. Anyone who disputes this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is both illiterate (unable to understand the plain meaning of words) and historically illiterate (unaware of the 18th century commentary).
Gun grabbers are generally the sort of people who have deified the state, turning it into both the source and enforcer of virtue. They do not realize that the state is composed of ordinary people who are generally no different from the rest of us, except that they are actually more likely to be evil, since power corrupts. Why would you allow people who are objectively more likely to be evil than yourself the right to restrict your access to weapons? Deifying the state seriously messes with your head!
BUT WHAT ABOUT NUKES!? Should ordinary people be allowed to own nukes? I am uncertain about this, considering that radioactive material can be considered a kind of poison, and the government probably has the right to regulate the possession of poisons— but can you imagine how non-invasive the government would be if it knew that there were a handful of private citizens out there with nuclear weapons? Politicians would have no choice but to behave themselves, limiting their activities to their natural mandates rather than perpetually trying to grow the government.