Congratulations on your status as Canadian. Perhaps when you grow up, we will let you be a U.S. citizen.
(Tee, Hee)
Here's my take on it:
The Second Ammendment does not extend or offer the right to bear arms. The Second Ammendment recognizes that the right exists -- arising out of a Natural right of a person/group to defend oneself against harm, tyranny, etc. Part of the value in the document is that it establishes that there are rights that exist due to a person's Being a person -- and are not "granted" by some governing authority that may (and almost always has in history) eventually establish a perspective of a right to govern against the will of the people (i.e. Divine Right of Kings, or mob rule, etc.)
Since Rights are NOT established or granted by Government, those Rights cannot be taken away (or infringed.)
Yes. I believe that.
No. I do not think that a semi-auto is a match for an armoured combat vehicle. I don't own one, nor do I own a combat vehicle. Part of the value of an armed populace is that large numbers of people that are in the position to defend themselves, personally, in individual situations, are safer than large numbers of individuals not in a position to defend themselves. There are many more citizens than there are soldiers. Soldiers have bigger weapons. I understand that.
I am more interested in the IDEA that I may be armed remaining in place as a deterant to someone breaking into my home, than to have a criminal have a pretty safe bet that I am not.
I also believe that a government that recognizes the rights of its citizens to bear arms is not likely planning to attack those citizens. Let's call it mutual respect.
As I see it, most people that I know that support the right to bear arms are not at all anti-government. They just have a perspective of humanity and the tendencies of organizations/governments that those entities are ever-growing, ever-self perpetuating -- and need to have their own power kept in check.