= new reply since forum marked as read
... you are unfamiliar with District of Columbia vs Heller
Here is the relevant section of the opinion -- highlighted
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
No one will argue that the RKBA can not be limited. All rights can be limited; yelling "Fire" in a crowded building is a common example of a 1A restriction. However, the Heller Decision dictates that firearm "in common use at the time" are protected under the 2A and given that the weapon you seem to revile most -- the semi-automatic, detachable magazine sport rifle, is one of the most popular firearms in the US today then if follows that it is in common use and is protected under the 2A.
Nuclear weapons -- while cool -- aren't in common use among civilian gun owners at this time. Sometime in the future, they might be easier to make and we'll see. One of these might be cool for hunting deer
... maybe because we don't have a history of government-chartered competition for civilian users of nuclear missiles?
http://www.odcmp.com/NM.htm
You can't send death threats to public officials.
You can't make violent threats against people on the street.
You can't sexually harass your employees or co-workers.
You can't incite a riot.
Can we extend this to criticism of the government? It harms the dignity of the state and interferes with its smooth operation. No sane citizen would object to that, assuming that I can define everybody who disagrees with my position as insane. 
KB: You can't legally own a bomber(unless the bombs are removed, at least).
You can own a bomber and, after a rather lengthy ATF process, you can own the bombs. You may need to talk to the State Departments about getting a munitions license to arm the bomber with the bombs but depending on the amount of money you're interested in wasting that can probably be accomplished
KB: You can't legally have a functioning nuclear missile in a silo in your backyard.
Sure you can. (Might be a bit large to be called a 'yard'.) Of course how you determined that it is functioning without actually having the missile to go with, I'm not sure.
KB: You can't legally own a loaded cannon, either.
Sure you can. I can list a few places where you can rent and shoot one if you'd like.
KB: And you can't put land mines on your property.
I give you this one since while you can own active mines, you'll likely go to prison is anyone is injured or killed by one.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution empowers the federal government to raise and support armies.
An army is an organization competent to defend a region. The implements you list are all weapons appropriate to and, arguably, useful ONLY for the defense of a region. Whereas the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) rather clearly implies that, since federal government is empowered to raise and support armies that weapons useful only for tasks with which the army is charged, would not be among those protected by the individual RKBA noted in the 2nd Amendment. These would include those weapons you listed along with various unit manned and crew served weapons, for example an aircraft carrier, M-249 SAW or an M-134 minigun.