"Anything the military has, the people should also have (if they can afford to pay for it on the open market), so as to keep the government in check, to defend the nation as a whole should it become necessary, or simply to defend themselves."
So you think it is ok if private citizens, at least the ones who could afford it, owned tactical nuclear weapons and ICBMs? You don't see any problem with that?
Nuclear weapons are a special case. Besides, do you know anyone who's got $10 BILLION (with a B) to buy one?
Actually, NO! If they can afford'em, they can have'em. There IS no "size restriction" in the Second Amendment. Private citizens in the past have owned heavy artillery (cannon) and the Navy equivalent of battleships in the past, with no detrimental results.
Don't you have a large border problem that needs your attention? The overly quick response to a truth you do not wish to accept, is telling. There are in the US of A established standards of control of nuclear weapons that have allowed this country to have them for 60 years without any accidents or even very noteworthy incidents.
The controls involve two highly trained and certified individuals to launch or have access, as well as the President of the United States or his living replacement, and there are others concerning security of the weapons that need more people than any private person under the financial status of George Soros, would find extremely difficult to implement.
As long as the required standards of control and use are maintained, there should not be a problem should there, however, because of the nature of the controls it would be extremely difficult and nearly financially impossible, for private individuals in the USA to meet the standards, so your whole line of reasoning is meant more as a gotcha than reality.
Anything the military has, a private citizen should be able to have, providing the standards of established control can be met in the case of nuclear weapons and the ICBM delivery vehicles. You may not regard the "government" as a potential problem, and I don't either as long as righteous people are at the helm, but the Founding Fathers were well aware that righteous people and government are not necessarily synonymous.
The Founders, knew what it was like to be up against a government, out gunned and out manned it was not a fun experience, and hence the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Although originally this was understood. The need to spell out the Bill of Rights, put it down on paper making things more difficult in this age of document dissection.