You can't simultaneously support red flag laws and the Constitution. I'm particularly referring to due process. Due process isn't just whatever someone (including legislators) decides it should be today. Removal of a right without even a trial by jury as described by the Constitution is not acceptable.

When the second amendment was drafted, far more powerful weapons than muskets existed. Canons for instance. Does the same rule you are making up apply to free speech? I.e., it only counts if you are using your voice or a quill and parchment or other such tech that existed at the time? Free speech doesn't apply to the internet? Or creating a CD or mp3 or when using the internet or typing something?

As far as weapons go, far, far more people have been killed because of government than because of people acting of their own volition so why are governments more trustworthy to have powerful weapons than individuals (and I think your "micro nuclear warheads" violate the laws of physics)? You don't "fully" support the constitution's provision to allow citizens to bear arms. You support a selective interpretation that was never intended. What do you think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is?

Redrafting the 2nd amendment would be one thing but you would probably also have to redraft the 9th and 10th in order to Constitutionally limit the right to bear arms. In fact, since the Constitution was a delegation of powers to the Federal government, it would probably take more than even that, as in an explicit delegation of that power. Fortunately, changing the Constitution takes much more than a simple majority vote.