That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right. Is the right to keep and bear arms imited "absolutely",when a law is passed by government restricting the use of some, but NOT ALL, weapons?
Yes.
Now you'll ask about nukes. Their use and developement by private parties can easily be covered by environmental regs and cost considerations. Then you'll move on to crew served weapons. Same thing. Note you'll not find a large number of men upset over it. Only that individual arms are being taken away. There use in familiarity and skill developement is also taken.
Note there is no arguement that individual parties should have nukes, or air power for that matter, because they can't afford them, or it. Coercion is not a method they have at their disposal to generate funds for the protection of their organization.