The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's all it says. Courts and legislators have agreed for hundreds of years that the right to keep and bear arms will be protected, but regulated. That's where we're at. What to regulate, how much to regulate. Your arguments are so off the mark it blows my mind.
You are pretty much coming out and saying this, so let's just put it out there: you think that one day you might need to fight a war against the government. You want to have lots of guns when "the war" comes. Listen, dude, it's so ridiculous. You want to be able to defeat the government when "the war" comes? Better start stocking up on lots of grenades, land mines, and helicopters. If you want to argue that military weapons should be legal to own, you need a rational purpose, not one based on paranoid delusion.
I'm not "you people," I'm me. I don't feel unsafe, nor does anybody else I know. I can wake up and go to bed at night with the knowledge that there is a .00000000001% chance that somebody will try to kill me. That's the primary reason that I don't accept the argument that a handgun won't do for self defense or any other reason.
And the second amendment obviously doesn't "make clear" that assault rifles have a legitimate purpose. That's the biggest load of gibberish I've heard from you yet. I won't even expound upon that because I think it's pretty obvious.