Well, time to check the weather forecast in Hell again. I'm largely in agreement with WalkingWolf.
I may have a little fun later with his claim that he doesn't use judicial like reasoning.
But for now...
He has arrived at about the same place I have long been. And I enjoy the route he took to get there. I too look to the plain language of the amendment. That language must be understood in context of original intent. Original intent doesn't do much for WMDs since such were not much conceived at the time.
Or maybe they were. It had long been standard practice when besieging a castle or fortified city to throw dead animals and the corpses of deceased persons over the walls into the city. While a bit crude by modern standards, a corpse deceased from bubonic plague, or even measles, lobbed into a cramped city with limited sanitation facilities is a pretty scary biological weapon. Let us also not forget blankets used by small pox patients and then given (deliberately or otherwise) to some Indian tribes.
Is there any indication that the founders/framers, or their contemporary State and local governments even permitted, much less encouraged anyone to keep such items on hand in case it was needed to combat some enemy? No.
What is clear, is that the 2nd amendment protects those "arms" which would be useful to members of a militia, engaged in their duties to provide for the defense of their community, State, or nation. Certainly that defense might be against their own government. But the primary purpose of the militia is not to rebel or defend against their own government, but rather to reduce the risk that government poses by reducing the need for a standing or professional army. If the citizens at large can be relied upon to defend against foreign invaders, the justification for large standing armies is greatly diminished. Citizens don't tend to oppress themselves or their neighbors nearly as reliably as do professional armies brought in from some distant area (Ignore current voting patterns and class warfare.)
Notably, militias are not of much use in offensive actions--The War Between the States being a rare exception where Union Militias were used against the Confederacy. (And some might argue this point by claiming the State militias were really used to put down extreme civil unrest.) Militia members typically don't go far from home to wage war. Militias are a defensive tool to defend against attack, to repel invasions, to put down civil unrest.
Original intent is clear to see here as provided by numerous citations included in
The Miller Decision. The decision came to the wrong conclusion regarding short barreled shotguns and the whole federal permit to own certain guns. But it has some great citations of the obligations imposed by 18th century colonies and States on keeping and bearing arms for the general defense.
Sane persons do not use WMDs including Nukes, Chemical, or Biological weapons on one's own soil. One's own people will be adversely affected. As has been pointed out, there is virtually no way a militia member or private law abiding citizen can use these weapons to defend his rights or community without inflicting such gross damage on his community as to constitute a violation of others' rights.
Of course, individual firearms including handguns, rifles, shotguns, short barreled rifles/shotguns, fully automatic firearms, easily concealed firearms, and disguised firearms all have tremendous usage for militia or guerrilla activity in defense of community, State, or nation. So too do edged weapons, explosives up to some limit I couldn't define at this time, and crew served weapons such as cannon, armored vehicles, and military capable aircraft and ships. Ammunition for such weapons is also protected as recognized even in the "Miller" decision we all hate so much.
But most importantly, we must remember that nobody has ever credibly argued that private citizens should have legal access to WMDs. So those who bring them up in arguing against our individual RsKBA are engaging in the logical fallacy of reducto ad absurbum. They argue nukes and then turn around and claim their argument supports bans on machine guns, semi-auto guns with certain cosmetic features, and a host of other guns. Some of these gun grabbers will go so far as to claim the 2nd amendment is really about muskets. I think the best answer to that is simply:
"Unless you've limited your free publishing and reading to feather quills and ink wells, you don't believe that argument at all."
Charles