Our government is supposed to govern with the consent of the governed - us. Thus, our government gets its authority from us - the government has the rights we chose to give to it. Our government only has the right to possess nukes because we gave it that right. We can't give rights that we don't already have ourselves; thus we have the right, if not the means, as individuals to possess nukes.
Hard to argue with that logic, if you buy into that quaint old notion of "consent of the governed".
Nonsense. There was never any such understanding. If the 2d used the term "weapons" there might be a scintilla of evidence for that interpretation.
Using the term "arms" limits the concept extensively.
Not really. Its quite reasonable to have some limitation in this regard, as the original authors of the 2nd Amendment obviously did not forsee the advent of WMDs. I think its safe to say those ought not to be available to common citizens. There are other classes of weapons that probably fall into this category as well. 12-inch naval destroyer guns come to mind.
The right to self defence is undeniable, but the right to match the nation's military for arms is ludicrous. Do you really want Bubba in the trailer park, who is downing a case of Pabst while nursing a grudge with the neighbor who keyed the paint on his 1978 Camaro, stroking the Big Red Button on the briefcase nuke sitting next to his La-Z-Boy? I don't think so.