If you use as your baseline the arms required for citizens to resist their government the answer is a little easier. The government isn’t going to nuke itself (well, maybe Hillary would) - and I’m pretty sure that some sort of attempt to use the military against US civilians would result in an internal fight in the armed services. So what does that have to do with your question?:
No nukes, but anything that light infantry can/does carry would be my personal benchmark, even though that is more restrictive than what the amendment originally intended.
Always remember, when the amendment was penned, private citizens owned cannons, mortars and warships - pretty much anything that one could afford was on the table.
Which is another reason why SCOTUS has shied away from this for so long. Each and every justice knows what the amendment is there for, and it scares the hell out of them.
While nukes area sticky issue, they are also a red herring. I can think of several different civilian uses for nuclear demolitions charges for future industries.
Be that as it may, it is an "uncomfortable" scenario for those of us who grew up under threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War.
I believe that. I believe they struggle between intellectual honesty and the practical implications.
“No nukes, but anything that light infantry can/does carry would be my personal benchmark”
The US military has no light infantry, so you’ll have to upgrade.
“They” should be scared.
If the civilized citizens of DC have firearms rights, they might just decide to throw out the twits that supported them in the first place. Not only that, but imagine the reaction of the local petty armed criminals not knowing if the guy in the nice suit they decide to roll pulls out his own piece and self-defends. An entire cottage industry is gone in a heart-beat.
Personally, I’m loving the lefty melt-down.
I like that they are scared!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson