I think it is pretty clear. It is hard to see why a state would feel the need to include the government's ability to own weapons at all, let alone in a documen

I think it is pretty clear. It is hard to see why a state would feel the need to include the government's ability to own weapons at all, let alone in a document listing rights and protections for individual citizens. Furthermore, the statements already draw a distinction between the people and an army controlled by the government.