STrawman, he of course had no position on something he didn't even know would ever exist. AND I don't see very many people wanting to own those items.
BUT a clear argument could be made, and in fact I do, that although the 2nd guarantees the right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee the right to own anything that is available. Based on my other readings of Jefferson, I would say that if he were alive today he would agree with my assessment. I would also hope that Allie doesn't think anyone should be able to own said weapons.
If everyone had their own Castel Bravo, nobody would ever commit any crime
- because we'd all be dead...
Well, there would be a FEW crimes committed, but they would be the last ones, that's for sure.
Seriously though, if one reads the 2nd strictly it only guarantees that you can bear arms. It does not guarantee what those arms can or can't be, and with obvious reason, I contend that Jefferson would have in noway wanted individual citizens to have the right to automatic weapons, WMD, or any other such weapon, but just as the rest of the document is left vague so that it can grow with technology and such, so to does 2nd.
For instance, the 1st says freedom of the press. Rather than stating books and newspapers specifically even though those were the only two mediums available at the time, if they had wrote freedom for newspapers and books, what about telegraph, radio, tv, internet? The were smart enough to see that potential issue, so they wrote the Bill of Rights somewhat vaguely.