Why?
What makes it "obvious" that I have not the right?
I will hope that WalkingWolf will come along and give you his most articulate and succinct explanation of why the 2A doesn't cover nukes, chemicals, biologicals, nor other WMDs. It boils down to this, if I recall from the last time I read his illustrative comments on the subject:
There is no way that you can bear (use) WMDs against government oppression (nor otherwise) without many innocent persons suffering the effects as well as your intended (and legally/morally justified) target.
What also makes it obvious is the history that provides original intent of the 2A. It was common for colonial and post ratification members of American society to own swords, firearms, cannon, even armed ships of war. But it was unheard of for anyone to keep the WMDs of their day.
What? You are unfamiliar with true WMDs of the 18th century? They had been used from time to time for a thousand years.
They were the rotting corpses of dead animals, and even humans that were catapulted into fortified cities under siege. So much the better if the deceased persons were known to have died of something like black plague or small pox. Some have alleged the US government handed out blankets infected with small pox to some American Indians in a deliberate move to infect and kill them (though others claim any such use of dirty blankets was a matter of ignorance rather than malice in a day before germ theory was mature).
Public health laws including quarantines were common in the ratification period. To the extent that the risk to public health from diseased or dead animals and ill or deceased persons (and their personal effects) was understood, laws were in place to prevent spreading illnesses. And such laws were, so far as I can tell, never challenged on a supposed right to keep WMDs.
Individuals owned weapons bearable by individuals (along with ownership of crew served weapons like cannon and ships). Local militias owned and manned crew served weapons. Neither individuals nor local militias presumed to maintain the 18th century version of biological WMDs.
If the 2A (and the rest of the constitution) is not read as per original intent, then it can be read in any way one desires, including as gun haters would like to read it as only protecting a "right" for States to keep national guards.
Whether government has any business owning WMDs is another discussion on which I will simply say that since some governments will have them and will be prone to use them for evil purposes, it might be prudent for good governments to maintain enough to act as a deterrent. MAD was a crazy strategy...except for working.
Charles