I think it depends a lot on how the term "arms" is defined, what does it cover, and what the spirit of the amendment indicates. For example, should "explosives" be included under "arms"?
Obviously, I believe there's some flexibility there. And ultimately this flexibility is what is allowing the push for the restriction of the so-called "assault weapons".
I usually respond with the answer that I believe the second amendment refers to small arms that can be carried on a person, and does not guarantee the right to explosives. However, I understand that this definition is still certainly subjective and open to discussion.
Unfortunately, with the media's demonizing of "assault weapons", the entirety of semi-automatics is under attack. I see no way of getting out of this without a supreme court ruling on exactly what does "arms" entail, and where do you draw the line.
Personally, a more irritating statement that I hear all the time from the opposition is the "2A was written by people with muskets over 200 years ago, it does not apply to the modern world."