The DM's job is different than the players - you're not supposed to use all that "power" to show how cool you are because you can kill some PC in your game. And I would think that the "others" that you're worried about who are not happy with the actions of the player in question aren't suddenly going to be thrilled when the game turns into some grudge-match between the DM and the player.
IMO the DM should really expect players to be advocates for their characters to an extent that they aren't going to appreciate a guilt-trip about their tactics. If, for example, a player discovers that his character can stand at the top of a cliff and throw rocks down at the monsters and kill them all without risk to the PC then you can pretty much expect him to do just that. I wouldn't take it as a mark of disrespect that the player doesn't ask your permission first.
This. If I made a ranger dual-wielding bastard swords, and my DM started accusing me of trying to "sneak the rules," the DM wouldn't have to kick me out - I'd leave that gaming table and not come back. Not because I have any particular attachment to dual-wielding bastard swords, but because the DM isn't handling the situation in anything remotely resembling a sensible fashion.
If the DM doesn't think people should be able to dual-wield bastard swords, which is not an unreasonable position, then the DM's response should be to say to the player, "Sorry. I don't allow dual-wielding bastard swords; I think it's grossly unrealistic that you could dual-wield weapons that big (or whatever the reasoning may be)." That's the DM's right.
If the player says, "Oh, okay. I'll switch to dual-wielding longswords and spend that feat on something else," then the matter should be closed. No holding grudges, no "three strikes and you're out" baloney, nothing like that. This is part of DMing and it happens all the time.
If the player doesn't agree with the DM's rationale for forbidding dual bastard swords, a discussion might ensue; as long as the discussion is civil, the DM gives the player a fair hearing, and the player accedes with good grace when the DM says "This is my final ruling," all is cool. This is a bit less clear-cut, since some players take advantage of a DM's willingness to hear them out (constantly griping over tiny things), but still, as long as it doesn't happen too often, this should also not be cause for any bad feelings on either side.
As for blowing up statues and walls and stuff... well, if you design dungeons where this is a profitable activity, you can hardly blame the players for engaging in it. It isn't abuse of the rules, it's using the tools the game gives them. Would you accuse them of "sneaking the rules" if they brought picks and shovels into the dungeon and started digging through the walls?
If you want them to stop, give them incentive to do so - valuable statuary that would bring a good haul back in town, or roaming monsters that are attracted to the noise of a warlock methodically
eldritch blasting a wall into rubble, or time constraints that preclude mining activities. Or just be pointedly bored ("Okay, you blow apart
another harmless statue. Were you going to do any actual adventuring tonight?") until they leave off. But don't punish players for having their characters do what those characters would logically do.
If there's one thing I've learned in my years as a DM, it's that players and DMs often disagree on what is and is not a reasonable interpretation of the rules. It's not because the player is a munchkin or a power gamer, it's because they see things differently. Some players also like to push the envelope a bit. Getting riled up about this is stupid. Just say "No" and leave it at that.
