Perhaps I will repeat what I said in hopes that the meaning will sink in.
I have already stated that I think it a bad idea for just any person to possess nuclear weapons.
And one would rightly conclude that I agree with you that the Founders would not favor such a measure.
But that in no way changes the fact that, at the time the Second Amendment was written, there were no arms in existence which had such a character. Therefor, what they wrote covered EVERY type of arms in existence or that would come into existence.
Surely you don't claim that cannons were excluded, do you?
Surely you don't claim that machine guns would be excluded if they wrote the amendment today, do you?
The arms protected at the time included explosive mines of considerable power. You don't claim these men were so ignorant as to have overlooked them, do you?
To say that nuclear arms have insufficient selectivity to be effective in war is to state that dropping those bombs on Japan was not justified.
I asked in another posting whether an amendment allowing four-year-olds to vote would be Constitutional? Would it be a good idea? Would our Founders agree with such a proposition?
And finally, if our Founders HAD implemented an amendment granting the vote to four-year-olds, would we be justified today in deciding that such a measure was ridiculous and permit Congress to legislate despite the amendment? Or would we be bound by the necessity of amending the Constitution?
When Paul Revere rode through town yelling, “To arms...to arms!”, I am quite sure no one grabbed an explosive mine or cannon. They grabbed a firearm and mustered to an area where the army had larger munitions available. I’m curious about what support you have for your belief that the 2ndAm was written to include every weapon or destructive device known to an 18th century soldier?