If -- as the #2A crowd is wont to say -- the 2nd Amendment is meant as preserving a citizen's right to have firepower on hand to stop an oppressive domestic government, then it would follow that the 2nd Amendment would want individual citizens to possess nuclear technology -- otherwise, the federal government easily has a monopoly on the use of force. Our handguns, rifles, and even semi-automatic stockpiles are nothing in the face of the United States' nuclear arsenal.
However, we don't see anybody seriously advocating for the position that individual people ought to have the right to nukes in their homes (and possibly concealed carry?!). Why? Because it is at that point in the thought experiment that the absurdity of the #2A argument is unmasked -- that at some point there is a limit as to how much power to do violence the average citizen needs, so as not to overburden and endanger the safety and security of its citizens. Too much violent firepower threatens the safety and liberty of us all -- full stop.
It's up to us to determine what "some point" is -- in fact, as citizens we have a civic duty to do so. This is another important distinction between sensible gun control advocates -- who recognize the responsibility of making such decisions for ourselves -- and the #2A ostrich-neckers who claim that nothing can be done. Ironically, in the midst of histrionically shouting about "preserving their rights," they willfully abdicate the most important right of all: that of self-governance.