> Limits on owning nuclear bombs can be seen as an increase in freedom for those who don't own them.

I would disagree here, limits on owning nuclear weapons is sort of capping the decrease of freedom for those who don't. A strict ban of nuclear weapons is required not to impact freedom of others.

So your analogy fails as a ban on freedom always translate into less free.

Actually I fails to see how putting limits on freedom would not limit freedom. Arguing otherwise does not make much sense.

Having the freedom to do something does not imply that this freedom will be used. Pretty much anybody is free to commit suicide, but does not.

Not at all. To say that less limits always translates into more freedom is very simplistic idea that I proved wrong.

If the freedom exists, it will be used by someone, because people do commit suicide.

Less limits can lead to more freedom, but some restrictions of freedom can also increase freedom.

For instance by having conscription a lesser evil government can protect itself against bigger evil government.

Case in point, Finland against Soviet Union during World War 2. By forcing Fins to serve in the Finnish army, Finland kept their independence from a totalitarian communistic rule and evolved themselves to one of the most free countries in the world.