You are the one redefining things, trying to make the argument that you can't make posession of an object illegal, only an action. Like the kilo of coke sitting in front of me, for example. Which is a fine argument to make, and one I hear for drunk driving a lot ("Where's the victim, officer?", etc.)
And that's a fine discussion to have: can posession of things that aren't causing harm to anyone be made illegal. It transcends constitutional law.
But the discussion here is whether or not the government of the US can constitutionally restrict a type of weapon being owned or who can own it, just as they restrict speech (what can be said/written)?
“But the discussion here is whether or not the government of the US can constitutionally restrict a type of weapon being owned or who can own it, just as they restrict speech (what can be said/written)?”
Not the same as has been stated by others numerous times. You’re equating the possession of an object with the exercise of speech.
My point is and always has been - do you think that there are any limits on firearm ownership?
You can store an M16 “safely”* and use it “responsibly”**. Therefore you cannot ban it under the 2ndA.
You cannot store a nuke “safely”* and use it “responsibly”**. Therefore, under strict scrutiny, it can be banned.
* - If an M16 “goes off” when stored, there’s a hole or 30 in the ceiling. If a nuke “goes off” when stored, a city disappears.
** - An M16 can be used, with reasonable assurance, without harming innocents/noncombatants. Using a nuke will, with reasonable assurance, severely harm a great many innocents/noncombatants.