The Constitution does acknowledge the concept of privately owned warships, by authorizing letters of marque, but says nothing of their limitations or regulation.
As I'm sure you are well aware, Ron Paul has advocated utilizing this Enumerated Power as an alternative to the either/or mentality that diplomacy or boots on the ground are the only choices for combating terrorism.
Gun control advocates who bloviate on about how the writers of the Constitution never intended for private citizens to own "military assault weapons" betray their lack of knowledge. With a signed letter of marque and reprisal, a private citizen could not only own a modern naval gunship, but use it to attack our nation's enemies.
"Well-regulated militia" means just that, and in US vs Miller, the Supreme Court acknowledged that military weapons are expressly covered by the Constitution. Paul Revere didn't go around shouting "The British are coming" (for one thing, he would have considered himself British), he told people "the regulars are coming." In those days, that was the distinction between soldiers and everyone else, both of whom carried the same types of weapons (actually, in some respects, the Americans had BETTER weapons, comparing the Kentucky Rifle used by many colonists to the Tower Musket of standard British issue). The first clause of the Second Amendment could be rephrased to say, with no loss of original inent, "A civilian population armed with military equipment being necessary to protect their liberties against a tyranical government..."
To which gun control types inevitably fall back on "do you think you're going to be able to fight the whole military with just your assault rifle", because if one man can't stop a whole army, there's no point in anything. 
I guess we should disband the entire military apparatus, since the best equipped infantry squad in the world can't do much about a bomber fleet.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
