>#2 is a non-issue except in an extremists mind.

Here we observe the devolving into ad-hominem calling the counterparty an extremist. If painting your counterparty as an "extremist" is how you want to make your point, that's your prerogative, and I'll give the you the benefit of the last word and never having to deal with me ever again. So after replying to my statement below (or not) rest assured you can feel well knowing you have the last word to an "extremist", which is of course whoever disagrees with you. You can walk away feeling proud and strong your name calling was necessary to make your point.

>You did not answer #1, do you believe the right to bear nuclear arms should be infringed? Can you answer?

No. I believe as the constitution is currently written they cannot be infringed. I believe if the 2nd amendment is amended they could be. Of course, if the constitution says arms aren't protected it would be a lot harder to call it an infringement. I also completely reject this notion of you holding the second amendment hostage which suggests our options are accepting legitimacy of implicitly banning nukes (and by extension, perhaps other unnamed things), or accept all arms. Clearly an amendment excluding nukes is an alternative.

>Making an amendment for every new form of arm would be a colossal waste of time if we can just agree that the second amendment is not an unlimited right as almost everyone understands it to be including conservative Supreme Court justices.

I don't agree with this interpretation. Again if you just want to defer to the courts that is fine, but I don't see the point in debating. You can simply say "my argument is whatever the latest interpretation of the supreme court is" and we both understand it's not really up to debate that the supreme court agrees with you that nuclear arms are bannable.

>Making an amendment for every new form of arms

I mean you don't even have to do that, you can change the second amendment to say "firearms .50 cal or smaller and knives" or say "excludes anything that a reasonable person would presume would be used to be killed 10+ people in a single activation of the munition." We can debate the wording aforementioned, maybe you don't like the exact phrases I used, but if we can word laws against these things then we can certainly make an amendment.

>would be a colossal waste

You might be the first person in history who simultaneously wants restrictions on nukes but thinks it's just too much work to solidify the framework banning them from people you don't want to have them. If the belief is banning nukes saves humanity or whatever I don't see putting pen to paper as a waste of time (and if universally agreed, not even that politically difficult.) Amending the constitution to exclude nukes would make this a lot more clear and less of a precarious position of being dependent on implicit interpretation by the courts, so I don't see a downside.

>the strict reading of the second amendment says "Arms" the whole point is a logical exercise in whether that literally means all arms or if it is in fact not an unlimited right to all arms

Yes my position is that it literally means all arms. If someone says something I think is absurd (I do not think the literal interpretation of the second is absurd at the time of its writing, but many would), I don't simply choose to re-interpret what they wrote to convince myself they implicitly did not mean what they said.

>assertion that it is not legal is a farce

Of course what's currently considered by most to be "legal" is whatever the supreme court says it is, I'm growing tired and bored of you suggesting any other opinion is a farce. It's pointless to debate, just go read the court proceedings if that's your position. It's worth noting at various times the supreme court changes its mind on what is legal, what is considered legal (or illegal) today could be considered different tomorrow upon appeal to the supreme court. I don't think it's inconceivable at some point the courts may take on more literal interpretation of the constitution, which could result in a constitutional convention (which some may argue we are due for).

And a second note on this point: supreme court justices themselves disagree on what's "legal" so even the majority opinion could be considered legal by one justice and illegal by the other. But of course a minority opinion justice is allowed to have these opinions of dissent and I am not... because that would make me a farce unlike the dissenting judges.