I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle – to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it’s very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it’s private ownership would violate the NAP, as it’s very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.

It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states “[…] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. One needs to have a precise definition for “bear”, and “Arms”. Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot “bear” a nuclear warhead. Perhaps “Arms” are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.

The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t specify that one has the right to keep and bear arms that were made when it was written, nor any other arms specifically. It, instead, states that one has the right to keep and bear arms, in the general sense, and such a right should not be infringed. Any deviation from the general interperetation is an infringement on one’s rights. One does have to think about what objects are themselves as arms, but this exclusive mentality is very different from an inclusive mentality.

Every constitutional right has limits.

Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states “Shall not be infringed”. That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of “Arms”, and “bear”.

There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.

Don’t forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:

[…] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]