I don't like that question.
Given powers granted to the government in the Constitution, what weapons may be restricted or forbidden?
Since the National Government has a monopoly on foreign policy and negotiation, there's a case for prohibiting nuclear weapons to the people. For instance, if a totalitarian regime were trying keep control of a country, chances are that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Those types of regimes use biochem weapons, however, so it's difficult to argue empirically that those are only really useful for foreign policy/war/deterrence. Since people with destroyers or missile frigates parked in the Mississippi might have a chilling effect on interstate commerce between neighboring States, that could be legitimately regulated, at least enough to prevent those inter-state relations problems.
The out of sight, out of mind policy that the government uses - make bad things illegal and nobody will worry about them anymore - and the fact that it's actually successful in placating the populace, that's the problem.
In modern parlance, just about every type of weapon fits into some category of "arms," e.g. "nuclear arms," "biochemical arms," "small arms," and "large arms." In 18th century language, from what I understand, cannons and other non-man-portable weapons were "guns," leaving only firearms and other personal weapons in the "arms" category.
(edit)
(LonW) A militia has the same weaponry as the typical light infantry soldier.
Huh? Because a militia has weapons x, y, and z, weapons x, y, and z are protected for use by the militia? That seems a bit circular to me.