Thanks for the thoughtful response.
After reading some of the posts on this thread, the consensus seemed to be, Rudy is wrong, the Second Amendment says we are allowed to have guns. However, on other threads, the consensus seemed to be, WMDs are wrong, they are not guaranteed by the Second. It seems to me there is a difference in degree, not in kind, between guns and WMDs. It is clear that guns will not stop the government if they are up to no good (Waco, for example).
I don't know where the line, if any, should be drawn.
Freegards
FedGov COULD have been stopped at Waco, had the church members included a few combat vets. That they didn't is a shame.
The line is not drawn between inanimate objects.
The line is drawn between people who use them responsibly, and those who demonstrably will/do not.
Without diving too deeply into the "WMDs and RKBA" debate, as this thread is about Rudy, let me say: so long as someone can safely store, handle, use and apply a weapon - any weapon - they have a right to do so. If reasonable people conclude someone is using a weapon in an unsafe manner, they have a right to infringe on that right (which returns once they can be safe again).
The difficulty with WMDs is that when used, the operator cannot be sure that innocents are not in harms way, save in rare and remote circumstances.
Actually if Koresh had a couple of 50mm PAK 37's (sold mail order until 1968) He might have fared a lot better (Which is of course why they were made illegal - the foresight of Kongress in protecting the government is amazing sometimes)