Is there an upper limit on how much destructive force a private citizen should be allowed to have?
My never-humble opinion is that when you can't employ said force in self-defense or the defense of innocents without risking violation of others' rights to the quiet enjoyment of their liberty and property, that's where the 2nd Amendment ends.
Strategic weapons have no value if the population turns hostile against those who attempt to usurp authority ( two reasons: 1. Destruction of assets and resources that those attempting to usurp are trying to control, and 2. If said control of strategic weapons falls in 'hostile territory', or with those who sympathize, they are useless to the usurper ).
Crew served weapons are in a grey area. Obviously cannon were crew-served. So were armed sloops. However, the historical record shows that these were also owned by private interests at the time of the Revolution.
That would ban everything, save maybe paintball guns and stun guns. There is always risk to bystanders when bullets and such start flying. The average deer rifle, well maybe not 30-30s, will penetrate clean through your neighbor down the block's house, should you use it to defend your life and property, and miss.
I don't see any exception in the second amendment for "dangerous arms" or "hazardous arms". Even a Brown Bess musket was a pretty nasty thing, and inaccurate as all get out, so misses, with the attending risk to bystanders, were almost guaranteed. Of course the colonials, especially colonial militia, were more likely to have rifles than were the Redcoats. In fact early exercise of Congress' power to provide for arming the militia allowed the more western regions' militias to provide them selves with rifles, while the more settled areas' militias were to provide themselves with muskets, of a uniform caliber. Even then Congress did not actually provide arms to the militia, but only provided the requirements for how they should arm themselves in regards to militia service.