system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to defend against the possibility of a tyrannical government and the "arms" being referenced in the amendment are not subject to being banned (by that government).

The main point I am trying to make is that whether or not you believe it is realistic, the 2nd amendment exists to acknowledge the rights of the people to have (and use) arms to defend themselves and the Constitution if the government becomes tyrannical.
With that in mind, how is the the banning of certain arms not a violation of the 2nd amendment? Especially being that the institution doing the banning is the government it was created to protect against. 
I know people will bring up nuclear weapons and other things as examples of things that should be banned. I believe that those kinds of items do not fall under the protection of the 2nd amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to acknowledge the right of the people to defend against a tyrannical government and the use of weapons of mass destruction would clearly be well outside the scope of defense. By design, they cause destruction on a large scale without control over who would be killed. 
Therefore I believe that the 2nd amendment applies to all conventional weapons only. Simply because mass killing of civilians is obviously inarguable as method of defense against tyranny.

Update: Great discussion everyone! Regardless of my views on the 2nd amendment, I'm grateful that we have the ability to discuss our thoughts on the Constitution without fear of government reprisal. So... Feel free to discuss the ramifications of the limits being placed on the 2nd amendment to be applied to first as well.
gpt
The second amendment was created in a time when a standing army was not the norm. It references a militia because that was what would be called upon in times of war. It was not meant to be a protection against a tyrannical local government, but against a foreign invading government.