That's your question, not mine. I am a supporter of the second, you are making the argument for things that can actually be limited. Every right has a limit, but there is a process for making sure that the limit is proper. Small arms limits are improper, ordnance limits are not, one does not equal the other.
People can posess bombs, you have to have the correct license, don't know about missles but it is irrelevant to the right to possess arms. Bombs are not "arms" in the traditional sense and neither are missles or nukes, they are crew served ordnance, not individual weapons.
The possession of such hurts no one, and it isn't their business how large your ammunition capacity is, cars are not protected rights, I don't give a **** what someone thinks about my exercise of a right(this includes politiicians), the right to bear means the right to carry.
Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.No right is absolute, but they have a very large scope of protection, small arms of any capacity and rate of fire are protected, crew served weapons are not. Anti-gunners don't have a good counter.