A lot hinges on understanding of terminology
And on that, we are not, sadly, all on the same page. I do see things somewhat differently than most, and feel free to disagree with my conclusions, as long as we agree on the actual meaning of the words we use.
Our so called 2nd Amendment right is what I call a natural right. Others use the term fundamental, but I prefer the term "natural" so as to infer the image of something existing from the basic fact that we exist in nature. All creatures, animal and plant defend themselves in some fashion or other. It is a natural right. No agreement by men, no law, nothing, changes this. We all have a natural right to defend ourselves from harm. Guns are the most effective and efficient means of doing so yet developed by the mind of man through technology. They are our teeth, claws, horns, or spines for defense, and any law attempting to prohibit them is a clear violation of our natural right, just as any law forbidding the lion its claws or the elk its antlers is a violation of natural order.
That being said, I will opine that our society, acting through government has valid justification to deny individuals their ability to exercise the natural right of being armed under certain conditions. We have long accepted the denial of liberty as punishment for a variety of crimes, and we have long accepted the denial of arms to those demonstrated to be incompetant (just as we deny them sharp objects and fire) and denial of arms to those proven to deliberately harm others. We cannot remove the right to arms, we did not grant it. What we do is prohibit the exercise of the right. You can call it removing/revoking your right, but I don't think that those are the proper terms. And using improper terms tends to lead one's arguments astray.
So, I do not support the principle of any restrictions on the ownership of any weapons, up to and including nukes. If you can afford them, go ahead. Understand that along with my support of unresticted ownership I do recognise the government has legitimate authority to regulate the public use of arms outside of personal defense. And that is where most of the arguments break down. One side or the other (usually the anti side) automatically assumes that ownership equals unrestricted public use, and when it comes to larger weapons (such as explosives) they assume their mere existance in private hands constitutes a clear and persent danger to society. Yet they fail to realize that it is individuals, no different that you or I that manage these weapons for our common good, all over our nation, and around the world. The mere fact that they wear a uniform does not make them saints incapable of evil or of error, any more than the fact that I do not (currently) wear one make me a careless ravening monster, a danger to myself and the world at large, who must not be permitted access to anything more than a rifle (if that) for the public good. People are either sane, stable individuals, or they are not, and if you can trust 18 year olds with machineguns and even nuclear weapons, all provided at government expense, how is it unreasonable for those same individuals to be trusted with the same items if they aquire them at their own expense?
Everybody goes off the handle, even hardcore supporters of gun rights when nuclear weapons are added to the argument, but I say, so what? The principle remains the same. If you want a nuke, fine. Build one. And if you do, I'm ok with you owning it. because if you actually can build one, from scratch, I doubt that you would use it irresposibly.
When arguers say "does that mean you can own nukes", well that right there is a semantics trap. Say yes, and the classify you as an irresposible nutcase, who thinks it is just fine for a street punk to have a nuke, with the risk to all of us from that. That is not the case. You can't just go down to the Sportsmans Warehouse and buy a nuclear weapon. Just because I agree that your right to arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment covers nukes as well, because as American citizens we have the right to "every terrible weapon of the soldier", doesn't mean that nukes must be sold to the general public on demand. Or any other arms for that matter. We have no "right" to be provided with any and all arms of our choosing, only that the government cannot, and should not deny us our ability to own such things, if we have the ability to aquire them. And if you say that no, our right don't extend to nukes, then you are admitting that there are limits to our right of ownership of inanimate objects. Not because of what they are, solely because of what we might do with them.
The nuke argument is a drastic extreme, and by no means a practical one, but the point is, if you can find your own source of special nuclear material legally, fabricate your own device, then you have the right to own it. Nukes are a special case, as no nuke was developed by a private firm, for sale to the public, Special Nuclear Material is owned by the government, and they have every right not to sell them to us, should they so choose. And they do so choose. Buy your nuclear material from elsewhere? Fine, as long as you comply with current laws (so basically, you can't do it). Govt doesn't sell them as surplus, so while you have technically a right to own one, you can't buy one legally, so unless you build one, you aren't going to get one. So this argument is useless, and nothing more than an emotional distraction to take the argument to that extreme.
As to the other large weapons, artillery and such, private citizens have owned them in the past, and some still do. Govt regulates the ammo (because of the explosives) but actually they could give a rip about the guns themselves. After all, without the shells, they are just military lawn ornaments.
You and I have a right to own such property as we wish, covered not only by the 2nd Amendment but also by our right of pursuit of happiness. Certainly you cannot use your right to harm others, but short of that, why should it matter? But you do not, in the eyes of the govt, have the right to harm yourself, even if that is your particular path to happiness. Isn't it odd how somethings may be considered as fundamental/God given/natural rights, but only to the point where they conflict with the social norms? And the social norms do change over time.
Today, you have the recognised legal right to own property that was banned in the past, and are banned from owning property that was legal and unrestricted in the past. I wonder what, if anything, we will have a "right" to own tomorrow?