

There are several ways in which one can choose to intrepret any 
constitutational issue :

   (a) Original intent
   (b) Subjectively intrepreted accordiong to political whims of the day.

If we use original intent as the basis for intrepreting the constitution, 
it is clear that the founding fathers intended that the individual citizen 
be allowed to bear arms similar to those used by soldiers of the day.

For references, I cite :

  - Federalist papers
  
  - "The Embarassing Second Ammendment", Yale Law Review, 
    Prof. Stanford Levinson [sorry, I don't have the date handy]

       Prof Levinson sought to prove that the 2nd ammendment did not
       convey an individual right, but concluded that it did, hence the 
       "embarassing" in his title.
 
  - Report of the Subcomittee on the Consititution, United States Sendate,
    97th Congress, Second Session February 1982.

  - U.S. vs. Verguido Urguidez (Supreme court case in recent years).  
    Although this case did not pertain to firearms, Justice Rhenquist
    notes that the term "the people" is a term of art conveying individual
    rights, and specifically cited several used, 2nd ammentment included,
    in his opinion.

  - Title 10, U.S. Code.  This states that all males between the ages of
    18 & 45 not part of the organized militia, and all female officers of
    the national guard are part of the unorganized militia.