Then how do we ban private ownership of WMDs?
We don't outright 'ban'/prohibit the ownership of anything.
-- As per the 14th, our rights to life, liberty, & property cannot be violated without due process.
- So instead of fiat [unconstitutional] prohibitions, we reasonably regulate where & how hazardous chemical, biological, & nuclear materials can be used or stored.
Get the principle? -- It works, and has worked, for years. Many private individuals & businesses own/use/store such hazardous materials.
I'm still unconvinced of the soundness of an incorporated 2nd Amendment.
Weird comment, - 'incorporation' has nothing to do with the WMD issue.
How do we decide what arms are reasonable to keep and bear (artillery, mechanized calvary, etc.), and how do we do that without infringing on the right?
Read much? - Just above I illustrated the constitutional basis of why ALL weapons are 'reasonable' to possess. -- Regulations can be made as to how they can be stored & used, as long as such rules do not violate our basic rights.
Flat out prohibitions on possession of artillery, tanks, machine guns, etc are unconstitutional, as specified by the 14th & 2nd amendments.
I understand your view, but as you know from our previous discussion of this, I find the power to regulate arms dangerously arbitrary given the lack of any such provision within the amendment. What is to prevent the strict regulation of hazardous substances/weapons from applying to other arms?