I think this would fall under the right to bare arms, would it not. There's nothing about the second amendment that restricts arms to only those you can carry. At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment was put in place as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Given that motivation, would it not make sense that citizens should have at least some degree of parity with the US government. Basically enough parity on an individual level that the citizens of a country
in aggregate could challenge an unjust government. I emphasized
in aggregate since that is the language that ensures that one individual citizen off his rocker cannot challenge a government that he alone thinks is tyrannical. i.e. one individual can't have nuclear weaponry or advanced fighter or bomber jets or tanks, because those types of weaponry allows one citizen a disproportionate impact if they choose to bare and use their arms before drumming up consensus with fellow citizens that feel the same.
If the government can arm drones, I think citizens should have the right to arm drones up to some set quantity, like 2-4 drones. Citizens should also have the right to maintain anti-drone technology capable of shooting down any drones above their property.
You may think I'm a right-wing nut after reading that statement, but actually I spent enough time in China, especially the western part to get a feel for what happens where there is an extreme asymmetry in armaments between a government and its citizens. The Chinese province XinJiang feels like an occupied country. I imagine that Tibet felt the like an occupied country as well until the rail lines were built enabling ethnic cleansing by dilution, making the occupation less obvious than it still is in XinJiang.