Does the right to keep and bear arms protect the right to keep and bear armor?

It does not and doesn't matter anyway. When the Gov has 500lbs bombs you body armor don't mean anything. In this day and age if someone were to stop tyranny, the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it would have to be through gorilla warfare until other options were to open up. Body armor does not fall into clandestine warfare, it basically would be a uniform.

No. Body armor would not have been considered "arms" at the time the constitution was ratified so it would not be an enumerated right. I own a set of AR500 body armor with plates because I compete in shoots that require it and its not a bad thing to have anyway. Why would congress try to ban something that gives protection to the wearer? Sure there have been instances (the Hollywood bank robbery/shootout) where criminals have worn body armor, those few instances are outweighed by the need for some people to be protected. So should body armor be a "right"? No, but we should have politicians concentrating on important issues instead of this one.