[ExoticPearTree]

> I’ve never really understood how the logic of the second amendment doesn’t extend to tanks and nukes.

Probably because if people could buy tanks to protect themselves, then the police would also need tanks to deconflict a situation where someone with a tank is upset and the damages are a bit higher when tank rounds start flying around. Imagine two neighbors getting into it in a a town, not to mention a city.

Even portable nukes are a stretch in the logic of "I need to protect my home" from intruders, not to mention the hundred kiloton yield ones.

[randallsquared]

The second amendment to the US Constitution doesn't concern itself with home defense justifications, but only with "we need to scare up a military force, right now". The "right way" to forbid tanks and tac nukes as arms that the people can own would have been to amend the Constitution with something that specifies the limits in some way, but instead we got creative interpretations of "shall not be infringed" to mean "can be infringed as long as a law or agency regulation is produced at either a federal or state level". Which is odd, as GP noted.