My argument against "Second Amendment doesn't mean we can have nukes" is the same for any law against ownership. The simple fact of ownership should not be illegal by any means, and that includes nuclear weapons. Possessing any dangerous device or substance can, and should, be regulated when the device or substance is handled improperly.
It is not illegal to own ground beef. It is not illegal to eat ground beef. It is not illegal to sell ground beef. However should you decide to store that ground beef in your back yard in an open container that is likely to be illegal as the odor would be offensive to the neighbors, and/or it could attract alligators/bears/lions/other wild animals that would pose a threat to others. Serving or selling ground beef that is undercooked or rotten would also likely get you in trouble.
Just having a tank, fighter jet, or nuclear weapon (all of which came up in conversations with co-workers when debating civil liberties) should not be illegal. If you decide to take your tank down the city streets at high speed and leave a path of crushed vehicles, downed street lights, and torn up lawns expect your ride to come to a sudden, and fatal, end. (This is exactly what happened to an upset Reservist.) Someone that is threatening serious injury or death with a knife, grenade, pistol, bucket of water, nuclear device, or an undercooked hamburger has just crossed the line from peaceful citizen to criminal and should expect the proper response from citizens and/or law enforcement that should be unhindered to fight back with an equally deadly weapon.
It's not the tool, it's the person. There are few things I can think of that are so inherently dangerous that they should not be in the hands of an adult of sound mind. Problem is that how does one determine one is of sound mind, that is where I get the most arguments from people I talk to about civil rights.
I keep hearing that "some people" are not responsible enough to own something as dangerous as a handgun. Since a handgun is SO dangerous one must first be checked out to determine one is "worthy" of owning such a dangerous device.
I usually come back with, "Don't you trust me to have a handgun/tank/nuclear device?" Either out of truth or politeness the response is, "I trust YOU, but there are some people that I do not trust." This usually follows with an example of an idiot doing something idiotic with something dangerous.
This it the trouble I have is finding a middle ground with one's right to defend one's self, family, and property and the ability to keep dangerous people away from dangerous things. My solution so far is to not keep anything from anybody unless or until one proves themselves unworthy. I should not have to prove my worthiness to own a weapon, and neither should anyone else. If a person has shown that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, or a nuclear weapon, then they should not be allowed to roam freely. If a person is deemed unsafe to operate a firearm (such as the examples given by my co-workers) then they should be deemed unworthy of handling a motor vehicle, matches, a computer, or a teakettle.
The authors of our Constitution owned warships, during World War II civilians were given bombs to drop from airplanes onto German submarines (with one confirmed kill, I might add). Today we have people jumping over our borders, pirates still raid ships at sea (and they don't have parrots on their shoulders, peg legs, or matchlocks, they do have automatic weapons and artillery), and crime... lots of crime. We should be able to own what ever devices and weapons we see fit to defend ourselves.
If my government representatives don't trust me with a handgun then why should I trust them with... well, anything?
I'm ranting and raving on but I feel I must add one more thing. The biggest problem I have with all of this regulation is that it leads to big (and expensive) government that doesn't know when to stop regulating, spending and getting bigger. Every law that tries to legislate me into heaven is another camel's nose under the tent flap. A background check means they can deny my rights with little recourse. A registration of my firearms means that they can take my rights in the future. All these claims that the gun laws are for my benefit does not compute with me. Motor vehicles are licensed, stamped, insured, inspected, regulated, modulated, and tabulated like you wouldn't believe and yet we still have all kinds of idiots that speed, drive drunk, kill, steal, drive without licenses, drive without insurance, and drive without seat belts and otherwise cause havoc and mayhem.
We don't need more laws, we need fewer laws. We need to enforce the laws that we have. (There's an idea, enforcement!) Perhaps we should take away some of these "for your safety" laws and put Darwin's theory to the test.