That's an interesting question. I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers felt that parity was the goal, and had no anticipation of the progression that would happen in militarytechnology. At the time of the constitutional congress, private ships carried every type of weapon know to man. The progression of weapons technology has certainly created classes of weapons that one doesn't want simply floating around, because of their potential for overwhelming harm. I am not sure what the founding fathers' opinion would have been.

So, I'll grant you the nuclear weapon restriction. Private citizens should not be allowed to own nukes. Nope, not even me.

But I don't see any other practical need to restrict. I'd be OK with identification and registration, so that if I used my laser guided bomb, you could figure out it was me. But if the government has it, my tax dollars paid for it, and I should be able to buy one too.

Seriously, I don't there's a logical case for restricting the types of weapons owned, if you submit that we have some right to own weapons. That right is contingent upon the assumption that people are generally rational and responsible, and that we will manage expections to that rule as exceptions. But maybe we'll change that, and start treating people as guilty until proven innocent.

The fact that there isn't a logical case doesn't counter the emotional drive to eliminate these items of fear, despite reams of evidence that the problem is something other than the firearm itself. But that's another argument entirely.