Well, you're headed into a new territory, now. I tend to believe that the framers intended that citizens shouldn't be prohibited from being as well equipped as their govt... but whatever I believe, that isnt what is written. And I certainly don't think we should have nuclear or chemical weapons (maybe our govts shouldnt, either, but that cat is out of the bag).
Again, I'd like to avoid a quibble over shades of gray, so invite you back to my initial question. What is it about ownership of the weapon (whether from your initial list or your new selection) itself, if used legally (today's laws) and responsibly, that harms you to the extent that you believe said ownership should be limited?