marcosportilloI doubt any common civilian would be able to procure nuclear bombs, fighter jets, tanks, etc. I guess if taken to its logical conclusion many of these types would also fall under individuals rights to have, but they would probably be owned by private security/military organizations.
Silencers (with licenses) and sniper rifles are allowed currently and, I think, would still fall under an individual’s right to bear arms.
Like I said, when it comes to the right to bear arms, the purpose is the citizenry’s ability to defend itself against a tyrannical government. Under this reasoning, private ownership of what you’d consider “offensive” weapons should be allowed. The extreme ones such as Nuclear bombs and such, I don’t think would be owned by individuals anyways because of the costs. But in any case, I think many of these extreme weapons of mass destruction would be outlawed, and frankly, the government shouldn’t be allowed to own them either. There is a huge difference between assault weapons and nukes.