I think given the intent to prevent tyranny, one could logically postulate that 'properly' means that the individual has the right to any arms likely to be used against him by the State. Period.

We see that Law enforcement has reasonable access to fully automatic rifles and semi automatic sidearms. They use flash bang grenades, armored personel carriers, snipers, chemical weapons and no knock warrants. Incremetally, we've witnessed the militarization of the police; a condition expressly prohibited by the constitution. If the intent was to suppress the the natural tendency for authority to wax overwhelmingly powerful, then either we need uninfringed access to what they have, or they need to surrender the use of those devices.

Some folks argue that civilians do not need missiles and nukes. They use that piece of logic to illustrate an unreasonable and dangerous extremist perspective that civilians only need bolt action hunting rifles chambered in neutered calibers. I agree that since the State has yet to use nukes and missiles against the population, then civilians do not need them to defend against the State. But it is a distortion of logic to assert that because civilians don't need WMDs, that we also must wield pitchforks and Garden Weasels against a militarized police force.

Do guns suck? Meh, not in and of themselves. There have been weapons in society since the earliest man. I would be willing to destroy all of my weapons the instant after everyone else destroys theirs. Since a rational person cansee that this will never happen, then weapons-guns being the state of the current art-are necessary tools for defense and providence. They are only dangerous in the wrong hands.