> If you believe this, does the 2A give people individual rights to own tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical weapons?

This question seems loaded, especially after how you started it with "if you believe this" when I already stated the foundational belief I have, but I'll take your question in good faith.

Citizens can already own rockets and missiles? Yes, they can, which is why there's private space companies. That has very little to do with 2A. As far as I'm aware an FFL (Federal Firearms License) would not give you access to chemical weapons. It's also not that hard for citizens to produce chemical weapons with household cleaners, but that also is beside the point.

2A, and pretty much anything below an FFL, is mainly the subject of my discussion. With an FFL a citizen can purchase pretty much any weapon, including a tank, or explosive.

> Where are the limits in the constitution on the types of arms a person can own?

Various states have attempted to circumvent the federal governments monopoly on this law, but I guess you could start to form some specific criteria by looking here: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license You'd have to cross these with state laws; some are very permissive, others not.

> This is especially relevant if the goal of the 2S is to be able to stand up to the US armed forces.

I mean, it's not that hard. The Taliban did it and they mostly had assault rifles, REX, grenades, and rockets (the anti-tank kind, not the artillery kind). I'll also address this in the next answer.

> Or is it your view that the goal of the 2A is for a poorly armed mob to be able to rise up in collective suicide against better armed better trained government forces?

There are several types of militias, two predominately in the US [2]. The first is a private militia [3]; to my knowledge in current day most of these are just extremists, but in a scenario that necessitated separating from the federal government I would assume people would start forming their own legitimate militias. How effective a militia would be would likely depend on their knowledge of tactics that the US military would employ. The second type is the state national guard [1]. State guards are trained by federal military but serve the states and are under the states command. National guard numbers, when fighting a federal power, would not be sufficient though. Supply lines would likely be disrupted and choked as well, so citizens and their weapons would be needed.

The short of it is no, I don't think it'll be just some randos running around fighting and causing an insurrection. It'd be coordinated state action alongside citizen militias if things came to that. To me, though, all these things help keep the government in check because the power of the federal government is not larger than the sum of collective state action.

Edit:

I also don't really appreciate the "fantasy" comment. I'm a U.S. citizen, I don't want any of that to happen. History shows that the influence of militias and participation was key in forming the US and was key throughout the politics of staying together as a country. Private citizens having access to weapons was key to early militias and you can't really separate the two at any point in history. For a more contiguous history: https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/03/20/a-short-history-of-... (this does leave out that states actually have laws regulating private militias, though that's the only thing I could find wrong with it)

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)....
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
3: https://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-M...