I don’t think I’ve encountered anyone who thinks there should be a right to privately own nuclear weapons. Basically everybody agrees there should be limits on the Second Amendment, the only real disagreement is where.
Most of the interesting policy area regarding the right to bear arms is actually in bearable arms -- small arms and light weapons. Although it is legal to own a tank, for example, this is not of much practical impact.
Perhaps the initial and continual suitable personal stability and trustworthiness for owning different categories of mass-casualty-capable weapons should be sensibility and increasingly regulated appropriately. Honestly, I think there should be a limited number of gun clubs that require continual vouching/sponsorship to retain access to certain categories of weapons. Letting randos amass 100 AKs with bumpstocks just seems insane.
You can amend the Constitution to forbid the Supreme Court from interpreting it to allow for unhindered access to weapons of mass destruction. Not super difficult if everyone agrees.
Moreover, Elon Musk can not launch anything with enough mass to come remotely close to the yield on even a small nuclear weapon. Kinetic bombardment of say, a 200 Mg tungsten rod from orbit, impacting Earth, would have a yield equivalent to only ~350 tons of TNT.
To be fair to the Second Amdendment supremacist, he only compared the sattelite deorbit with the explosive arsenal of the wacko the FBI arrested, not tot nuclear weapons.
Which clause?
If you read it, I think that you’ll be surprised to find that it doesn’t actually state anything about interpretation. It was in Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court invented the doctrine of judicial review.
I actually agree that the power of interpretation is implied by having a judicial power at all, but it’s not in the black and white text.
Jefferson was right when he said the Constitution should be rewritten once per generation.
In other words, all other things being equal, if wealthy private citizens want to fund the Departments of Energy and Defense over and above their tax obligations, who am I to complain?
It's not like the DoE doesn't already employ private contractors in a wide variety of nuclear security roles[1].
[1] http://www.publicdomainfiles.com/show_file.php?id=1397444401...
They don't want to draw a line because that's hard so they eliminate the line and we end up with ridiculous logic like the right to bear nuclear weapons.