The purpose of the Second Amendment is to pose a viable threat to the military. This is why the Second Amendment says, "arms", and not gun, firearm, or rifle. Arms are any physical or logistical implement of warfare. For example, this includes military transport, encrypted communication, and according to the people who wrote it, EVERYTHING which is in standard issue to the standing army. Purposely the limiting factor is cost. They were, after all, capitalists and merchants. This means everything from buttons to bullets to battleships. Of which our Founding Fathers are well recorded as literally supporting exactly this.
Any law which prevents a citizen from owning any weapon which allows them to directly challenge the government's authority is by definition unconstitutional and therefore illegal. To say otherwise is to say one doesn't understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. To say otherwise is to directly contradict endless writings of the very people who wrote the US Constitution.
If in doubt, who should you trust? A government employee who may have cause to destroy your human rights? Or the people who created this country and wrote the document on which it is built? People who hate liberty and want to destroy your human rights say you should trust the government in all things. People who support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness say you should trust what has given you everything you have today.
There is much hyperbole on the topic. Such as, should you have nukes and bio-weapons. The answer is actually very straight forward and simple. No. Because they are not in standard issue to the standing army. If they were, then of course they should be. Because it's the only way to ensure force parity. Force parity is the primary reason the Second Amendment exists.
The other catch here is that "regulate" is one of the key words within the Second Amendment. This means to know how to properly clean, use, and maintain your arms. So for example, it's not reasonable to say that such weapons would be available to Tyrone on the corner, unless Tyrone has completed advanced training on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon systems, including the specifics of what Tyrone wants to own. This may seem like a violation, but it's not. One of the exceptions to the US Constitution is that rights may be infringed when and only when it's for the greater good. I think we can agree that not allowing Tyrone have a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon without proper training, gear, and facilities is in fact in society's best interests. Which in itself becomes a limiting factor because Tyrone on the corner could never afford all of that. Which takes it right off the table. So much for the hyperbolic arguments.
If you put things into proper perspective, ownership of such extreme arms would be fairly rare. For example, let's talk about an M1A2 tank. According to the US Constitution it is perfectly legal to own one of these. Likewise anyone preventing this is supposed to be fined and placed in prison; according to federal law. That said, based on what we know from above, how many people do you know that can afford to pay nine million dollars for their tank? Then pay thousands of dollars per round. Then pay thousands of dollars per hour to operate. Plus pay for the thousands of dollars in training? Not to mention the periodic maintenance which is required. For example, the turbine must periodically be overhauled, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Which means, to be a simple tank owner, you've spent considerable training time and roughly $10,000,000. How often do you think that's going to happen? Does anyone seriously believe Tyrone is going to be rolling around in the hood in one of these? Especially since they can't be driven on streets without destroying the streets.
At the intersection of goodness, liberty, and reality, lays the Second Amendment. Capitalism and pragmatic education is and always has been intended to be the sole arms barrier.