You don't like it, or want "reasonable restrictions"? Fine amend the Constitution, don't ignore it's plain language.
You assume an awful lot. An awful lot that you are wrong about. How does it feel and think of yourself as having assumed wrong. Especially since you probably don't know what you are wrong about.
You see, I knew when I was writing my post that you replied to that someone would respond similar to how you did. I'm truly sorry it was you. For I previously had higher respect for your reading comprehension.
BTW, I imagine that if a civilian had a nuclear weapon stored on their property that the community would get every business to ostracize the person, Including far away business like utility companies and mail order food sellers. Of course, friends of the person could supply him with food and necessities, that is, if they didn't mind running the risk of being ostracized too.
I think ostracism is far more effective. Most communities have zoning laws about where explosive magazines may and may not be located. For some reason I think that nuclear weapon storage zone is far, far away from any sizeable population -- any town that has local government.
My use of "you" was meant to indicate a collective "you" not necessarily you individually.
I think ostracism is far more effective.
Individuals can do whatever they want, including ostracism. But governments cannot violate the restrictions of the Constitution. Arms are arms, if you want to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, no matter how "reasonable" the infringement, you must amend the document, or ignore it. The only exception, which your example comes close to, is where rights conflict. My right to drive down the street, may mean that you can't use that street for a protest march for example.
Thus restrictions on keeping area effect weapons would need to be subject to "strict scrutiny", to be certain that the regulations or restrictions do not deny the right protected entirely and are the least possible restriction on that right consistent with protecting other rights or the public safety.
Nuclear weapons, are *hard* to set off, they are most unnatural devices. Thus some minimal standards to be certain that a weapon wasn't dangerous unless the owner intended it to be would be OK, but pure bans would probably not be, since the end of protecting the neighborhood/city could be accomplished by less restrictive means than a pure ban. The same would be true of storage of ammunition for that 155mm, the piece itself is just a big boat anchor and not even a fire hazard without the ammunition.
The Swiss keep full auto assault rifles (or battle rifles in the case of the older folks) in their homes, and some keep heavier crew served stuff, as well as the demolition charges for the local bridge or bridges, which have built in chambers for the charges, but that's as reserve members of the Army (well not quite since when they "get out" they can buy the individual weapon and continue to keep it at home, or could last I checked anyway), but the control of the weapons is still individual, indicating that even heavy weapons can be safely stored by individuals. Similarly there are people who own howitzers, although most are older WW-II era weapons and of a bit smaller caliber, they just have to pay the darned tax, and have a big storage shed. Peaceable folks don't want to blow up their own house along with the neighborhood, and those who own such weapons have managed not to do so.
The biggest thing is that there is no line of demarcation. Even a .22 could kill the neighbor kid should it be accidentally discharged in just the wrong direction. (out the window and into the neighbor's window.
Remember the second amendment is no protection for the actual *use* of arms, and especially not their misuse, only keeping and bearing.