Click on the questions of interest below to jump to the answers.
A: No, according to U.S. Law and the Supreme Court.
A: No, it has the same status as the rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments. See US vs. Verdugo-Urquidez (supreme Court), 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1061 (1990):
"[T]he 'people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
A: No, that's a strawman argument. US vs. Miller (supreme Court) (1939) tells us what arms are meant in the Second Amendment:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense...
And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind
in common use at the time."
(Note: emphasis is mine)