Let me assure you. With something as destructive as a nuclear bomb, the general welfare clause comes in to play.
I thnk that ordinance of lesser power would easily fit into the general welfare clause.
I think natural law would come into play, remember those set of God given rights we all have that we chose to surrender a very few of in the process of forming a federal government. Therefor, if I knew a neighbor had a nuclear explosive devise, the God given right to self preservation would allow me to take it away from them and deliver it to someone who could render it useless.
I would take it no matter how thoroughly documented their ownersip was or die trying.
It's no wonder that you can't understand that it is possible for the Constitution to guarantee something which might be a very bad idea, such as the right to keep a nuclear weapon.
You don't even seem to understand that the amendments to the Constitution post-date and supercede the main text of the Constitution. You wouldn't claim that the "general welfare" clause permits freedom of speech to be abridged, would you?
Nothing whatever in the original text of the Constitution can reduce in the slightest the protection afforded by the Second Amendment.
GulfBreeze also said: "Therefor, if I knew a neighbor had a nuclear explosive devise, the God given right to self preservation would allow me to take it away from them and deliver it to someone who could render it useless."
Bully for you. And this differs from the Brady Bunch, who make the same claim regarding handguns, just how? Will you confiscate and burn your neighbor's books if you fear that they might harm you?
The Constitution is a compact among free people. I stopped being morally bound by this covenant when the state of Kalifornia began its draconian program of gun control, despite my inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
It sounds to me like you, too, have decided that the provisions of the Constitution are not to your liking. Thus you, too, are morally free to disregard it.
But what we don't have justification to do, is to pick and choose from among the details of the Constitution. You can't expect protection from the First Amendment while owning other people as property which is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Don't be surprised, then, if at some future time the mutual rejection of this compact by the two of us has unintended consequences. I might not be able to distinguish between your lawless disregard of the Second Amendment with respect to nuclear arms, and the lawless disregard of the BATFE and Brady Bunch with respect to "assault weapons" or handguns.
Finally, you have found something worth dying for, but it is still just a lame straw man argument. None of your neighbors have any nukes, suitcase or otherwise.
LOL