Member Rara Avis
Actually, Reb, I believe if we were to agree that the right to bear arms should remain in the Bill of Rights, you should indeed be allowed your nuke. Assuming, of course, you could afford it? Not everyone three hundred years ago had a single-shot, muzzle loaded ball shooter, either.
It has always been clear, at least to me, that the Bill of Rights was added to the American Constitution at the insistence of men who very much didn't trust government. They obviously were also men prepared to violently oppose any government they felt had wandered too far down the path of tyranny. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, I think, is essentially the right to have a fighting chance against our own government should it ever come to that. That's an over-simplification, I know (State militia versus Federal army is probably closer to what they foresaw), but I honestly don't think it's too far off the mark.
The limitations we've already allowed on our right to bear arms has pretty much circumvented the Founders' intent. You can't have an automatic weapon, you can't have a tank, and yea, they seriously frown on anyone stockpiling their own nukes. Those State militias, of course, have become our national army, a.k.a. the National Guard.
The right to pose a serious threat to tyranny has devolved into the right to shoot targets and poor, helpless little animals. I really don't think that's what the Founders intended.