And yes - even though I have to admit I paused when I first extended the concept to nukes, and had to think long and hard on that subject - I have to say even privately owned nukes are and should be protected.
Before all your detractors jump on me as another nutcase, I hope they will consider the very important aspect of the civilizing effect of private weapons ownership. Today we are living in an increasingly uncivilized world, so the thought of nukes in the hands of those predators out there naturally causes grave concerns. However, the breakdown of civilization is in large part due precisely to the disarming of law abiding, peaceful and responsible citizens - turning the population into easy prey is precisely what increases the numbers of predators - just like in nature - of which we are of course part even if we like to think of ourselves as removed from it. That little toy handgun in the purse has saved many a woman from rape, effectively civilizing the world around her. The same is true at every scale. Nuclear armed US and USSR did not directly confront each other creating another hot world war. They kept things relatively civilized.
As regards muslim fanatics - what difference does it make if they have nukes or box cutters - they can kill just as many people either way as we are reminded today. In fact, I would rather they identify themselves and their intention by carrying around nukes rather than be afraid of anyone carrying a pen knife onto a plane.
It should also be pointed out that fighter aircraft, 2000 pound bombs and suitcase nukes are rather expensive - limiting the market to those who have assets sufficient to need such protection.
Finally, should the day arrive that suitcase nukes are readily available and affordable, I have little doubt that there would immediately follow a big market for some lovely little invention that remotely disables any triggering device or some such counter-measure.
I would also point out to your detractors that it as not so long ago - 40 odd years ago - that I, not yet a teenager, openly carried a rifle to and from school in New York City on the subways without anyone thinking twice about it (my school had a target range in the basement)
So yes, even privately owned nukes ought be protected under the second amendment. As to why some responsible citizen might feel the need for one, I would trust them to assess their own needs. Trying to imagine such a need, perhaps in the not too distant future some rancher in a desolate area along our southern border might be facing invasion by some well armed drug gang from the south equipped with armored cars, rpg's and the like. What weapons of self defense might he need as a last resort?
Our founders were not stupid. The history of mankind has proven over and over that security and safety lie in the private possession of arms - whether a stick, a knife or the most advanced weapon available in the world of the day for surely anyone intending you harm will acquire and use the best they can get.
I think so to.
Instead of teaching our grade school children how to put a condom on a cucumber, we should be teaching them how to load M16 magazines and how to align the iron sights. I'm grow weary of adopting only those standards suitable for the lowest common denominator.
At the risk of further ridicule, I would propose that every citizen be armed at the age of ten. They should carry their arms wherever they go.
There will certainly be some thinning of the herd while the ignorant come to grips with their responsibilities, but the resulting emphasis on individual responsibility would more than compensate.
The path we are on now will result in the ultimate socialist paradise, where everything not explicitly allowed is prohibited and everything allowed is required. What a sad nation it will be.