First and foremost, I think there are plenty of examples of non-government military taking out Abrams tanks out there, without requiring TOW missiles and the like.
That said, I certainly agree where you're coming from. If a citizen can fear the arms of their government, then the 2nd has absolutely failed. There is no requirement in the constitution for a loud weapon, nor a limitation on the number of times it can fire with a single pull of the trigger (certainly weapons that existed at the time, even if liberals love to ignore that concept.)
To me, however, the bridge 'too far' is area of effect weapons. Such weapons, to me, belong only in a structured environment which has self regulation. An organized militia seems right and proper for having tanks and Apache helicopters, as the misuse of these weapons can be regulated and defeated by the militia itself.
I've seen at close hand disastrous and deadly accidents with pyrotechnics handled by highly trained and very well regulated technicians. It takes very little imagination to consider what would happen with self regulated handling of explosives, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.
“To me, however, the bridge ‘too far’ is area of effect weapons. Such weapons, to me, belong only in a structured environment which has self regulation. “
The natural laws of economics would place limits on the ownership of such weapons, without the government doing so. Nuclear weapons, artillery, and the like are expensive. Only the (very)wealthiest citizens, corporations, and local and state governments could afford them, and that would limit their number and use accordingly.
Regulate chemistry....