> If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones.

Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

If by government they mean civilian government/law enforcement, and excluding military, then that's a very valid line of reasoning. Other than machine guns manufactured after 1986, which ban is likely unconstitutional(1), on a federal level in the US there's no arms law enforcement can have that civilians not employed in LE can't also own with the proper paperwork.

(1)The most recent case I know that mentioned constitutionality of the machine gun ban used the circular logic that as machine guns are not currently common weapons owned and in use by civilians, because they are banned, it's not illegal to ban them. Seeing as how machine guns manufactured before 1986 are legal to own, and it's rather easy to /illegally/ convert a rifle to full auto, the ban really does nothing of use other than make holders of pre-1986 guns wealthy. Since there's a small number of people who could afford the ammo to shoot full auto other than as a novelty, no one cares enough to challenge the ban seriously.

I think this would fall under the right to bare arms, would it not. There's nothing about the second amendment that restricts arms to only those you can carry. At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment was put in place as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Given that motivation, would it not make sense that citizens should have at least some degree of parity with the US government. Basically enough parity on an individual level that the citizens of a country in aggregate could challenge an unjust government. I emphasized in aggregate since that is the language that ensures that one individual citizen off his rocker cannot challenge a government that he alone thinks is tyrannical. i.e. one individual can't have nuclear weaponry or advanced fighter or bomber jets or tanks, because those types of weaponry allows one citizen a disproportionate impact if they choose to bare and use their arms before drumming up consensus with fellow citizens that feel the same.

If the government can arm drones, I think citizens should have the right to arm drones up to some set quantity, like 2-4 drones. Citizens should also have the right to maintain anti-drone technology capable of shooting down any drones above their property.

You may think I'm a right-wing nut after reading that statement, but actually I spent enough time in China, especially the western part to get a feel for what happens where there is an extreme asymmetry in armaments between a government and its citizens. The Chinese province XinJiang feels like an occupied country. I imagine that Tibet felt the like an occupied country as well until the rail lines were built enabling ethnic cleansing by dilution, making the occupation less obvious than it still is in XinJiang.

In the Second Amendment, you are correct -- there is nothing limiting you to arms that you can carry. Since then, however, the Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, defined "arms" to mean "man portable arms".

I believe this narrow definition (and FAA monitored airspace) that would prevent you from owning your own drone (even if you could build it), and is what keeps us from owning missiles, rocket launchers (even though many are in fact man-portable), etc., despite the fact that the Revolutionary War was won with cannons and ships that formed our militia and navy, all provided by the citizenry at the time.

I would think this fits from a second amendment frame of mind.

You say "government" and "citizen".

You need 3 groups: government, private citizen, and business.

Businesses are just groups of private citizens.

If that were true, there would be no point in incorporating! Businesses are very distinct from groups of private citizens.

Does this line of logic extend to gun control? (not trolling, genuinely curious)