> Do you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms?

If it was to serve its original purpose, it arguably might need to (just as private ownership of the heaviest artillery was in the early Republic not unheard of) but any hope of it serving its original purpose has been lost since at least the late 19th Century with the expansion of paramilitary police forces, and the final nail in it's coffin was drilled with the transition to a fully professional military after Vietnam, and what weapons are covered doesn't really matter any more to it's intended function, only to the degree of incidental harm it inflicts while failing to protect from the harms of the isolated culture of large permanent military/paramilitart internal and external security forces.