George Washington saw owning a cannon as consistent with “arms”. Some Americans even did so, in the 18th century (and still today)
However, I believe there is a limitation that was partly established in United States v. Miller ( though I could be wrong), that of discriminatory fire.
As a wielder, can you be reasonably certain, that you can both fire your weapon at your intended target, and not cause collateral damage?
In tight quarters, in an urban apartment complex, utilizing a sawed-off shot gun that’s intended to spread its fire? No, so, rules can be made about it.
Nuclear weapons face a similar quagmire, in that, there’s basically no way to use them without causing collateral damage. Same to gaseous weapons, or biological agents.
Sawed off shotguns and cannon’s however, can be used discriminantly in more wide-open surroundings, and the latter also serves a military purpose.