“There’s an argument elsewhere in this thread that alludes to nuclear weapons. Explosive devices are not generally considered to be firearms, which is the subject of this action.”
The power of a nuclear weapons can’t be controlled by an ordinary citizen and would threaten the lives of others, therefore, the banning of nuclear weapons is within the constitution since the rights of others are threatened. The same argument can be made regarding biological weapons ownership. A Firearm on the other hand can be controlled by it’s owner and is not indiscriminate in nature, therefore firearm ownership falls under the protection of the second amendment.
That being said, from a technical standpoint a nuclear weapon is an “arm” as defined by the 2nd amendment.
Absolutely. And the keeping of it shall not be infringed. It's entirely conceivable that the Constitution may need to be modified from time to time, as it has been over two dozen times. The Constitution does not automatically become whatever people think that it should become.
At the time of our nation's founding, the keeping and bearing of ALL ARMS was to be protected from infringement.
It took a Constitutional amendment to restrict anybody from being President for more than two full terms. Just because this idea was so reasonable that a super-majority of Congress and a super-majority of state legislatures thought it should be enforced, the Constitution did not automatically modify itself to achieve that end.