Your debating skills are leaving me absolutely breathless.
Let's hear something from you regarding which arms shall be permitted to the people and which shall not.
You claim nuclear weapons are out. I presume that includes so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons of a yield below, say, 10 kilotons.
Fine.
Now, what is the limit on conventional explosives? A ton. A pound? A tenth of an ounce?
Aircraft? Out completely, or shall the people have the right to keep and bear single-engine biplanes. How about helicopters? No?
Rifles. Another poster claims "sniper rifles" are in the gray area, but hunting rifles are okay. Which rifles do you claim are protected?
How about body armor? Are all types permitted or prohibited or somewhere in between?
Crossbows?
Armored vehicles? Cruise missiles? Small cruise missiles? Short-range cruise missiles? Grenades?
Molotov cocktails? Gasoline? Glass bottles? Cotton rags? Matches?
Do you propose that all these various topics be addressed in a Constitutional amendment or will we just leave it to a liberal Congress to decide?
You've taken it upon yourself to declare that weapons which utilize nuclear reactions are somehow of a different character and therefor do not deserve the protection provided by the Second Amendment. What are the others?
Nothing I have said so far took issue with the merits of your argument (I’ll save that for a later day), but for the lack of savvy shown in presenting your argument by arguing for the most extreme position possible. For every person who might be swayed by such an argument, fifty will be left scratching their head and wondering what planet you came from. Perhaps it explains the failure to get signatures for your petition. How much easier it is to stand on the fringe and spout extreme arguments, than it is to actually get something worthwhile accomplished.
If you truly believe that the sane, rational men who established the Constitution and BOR would favor personal ownership of tactical nuclear weapons, then my earlier assessment of your sanity stands.