I think it is a pretty false equivalency to compare nukes and guns in the same sentence.
I am definitely for gun rights (to a certain extent), but guns have many useful purposes, such as hunting and entertainment (Alaskans hunt to survive, shooting is even an Olympic sport) and can be regulated to a reasonable degree.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand have absolutely no useful purpose to the general public (possessing small amount of radioactive material for a homemade nuclear generator would be a different discussion) and have the absolute potential for negative consequences. Absolutely no good can come from a person owning a nuclear weapon, with plenty of bad.
But anti-gun bigots compare guns and nukes all the time. That's why I wrote this-- to answer them.
"Reasonable regulation" is an oxymoron. You don't own other people, and have no authority to violate their life, liberty, property, exchanges, or associations. The moment you propose licensing, permits, tax stamps, or bureaucratic oversight over such things, you are a tyrant.