That isn’t completely true. A private citizen can own a tank with live ammo with the proper registrations for any armament (like full auto machine guns) and any other destructive devices (the main gun and each round of ammo for it). As for driving on public roads, likely require special permits, not unlike any massive tracked excavation equipment over a certain tonnage.
But gun apologists want rights without responsibilities. They don't want to be part of a real militia and subject to all the regulations that would entail. So I don't really care if you think you can infer a right to own a high capacity magazine from that passage.
using the gun restrictionist "logic" The government passes a law saying all citizens must complete High school the gun haters claim that gives congress the power to tell you that you cannot attend doctoral classes in philosophy, law school or Masters programs in a Divinity School
There is no requirement to be in a militia in order to exercise your right to own an arm. Sorry for your confusion
Your argument is with the OP who has fallaciously DECIDED that the Militia Act of 1792 MUST be applied to modern firearms.
Explain what the object is, what it is used for, and how it was intended by the manufacturer to be used in an illegal manner.
Such as what, precisely? The united states federal government killed the militia. Therefore it is physically, as well as legally, impossible for anyone to be a part of such. And the united state supreme court has stated it does not care for the factually incorrect opinions of those who believe the second amendment does not protect and apply to modern firearms.