I'm not sure about this. What about shovels, nuclear bombs, or meth [0]? Do we have a right to bear nukes?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_subst...
Amphetamines or other performance-enhancing drugs are absolutely useful for military applications. As much as I loathe drugs and addiction I don't believe I have the right to restrict what another human being can or cannot put into their body.
> My personal stance on the 'right to bear nukes' question is that a weapon of mass destruction has no defensive utility and is either self-destructive or offensive by nature.
Serious question: How is that different from munition and/or firearms?
As far as I know, if you exclude weapons whose utility is only self-destructive or offensive, you'll only have (active/passive) shielding left, which precise munitions and firearms to the best of my knowledge are not. Yes, they can be used as a threat, but the same can be said for nukes.
If someone breaks into your home, you can reliably combat the intruder with a firearm - without harming a bystander.
If someone is attacking your town or village, you can at least situationally combat them with precision-guided munitions without killing any civilians (not that they are used ethically in all cases, just speaking to their potential use).
Neither of those things is true of WMDs. You have to stretch the bounds of realism pretty far before you can find a way to deploy a nuke effectively without killing innocent people, or yourself.