“But at least some people think “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has no limits and is inclusive up to the keeping and bearing of nuclear weapons.”
I recall a thread where folks were debating this, and someone said by “arms” they meant things carried personaly by a troop. So automatic weapons, hand grenades, TOW missles, etc. (But not tanks or jets or A-bombs).
But someone else mentioned how private ships (privateers) had their own cannon. Which is mot a “personal” weapon.
As one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves from our government, I’m pretty sure our Founding Fathers would want us on a bit more level playing field instead of mainly limited to hunting rifles and shotguns.
Of course the original Patriots were fond of “trading up” to the King’s cannons!
One argument (which I rather agree with) is that it permits all arms of a discriminate nature - those that can be used for their expressed intent without infringing on the rights of others outside the conflict.
Basically, anything short of a WMD, which cannot be used discriminately - you cannot fire one off at an attacker without causing problems for others.