"You people" huh?

Seconds do count, in reacting to a threat. The second a shooter enters a school the staff has seconds to respond, but once the madman starts firing, if nobody has a gun to fire back, it's not going to matter if he swaps 20 mags or 10.

How do you determine what a common weapon is though? You're saying semi-automatic weapons are common weapons, and therefore should not be restricted from civilians. What about grenades, or rocket launchers? Where do you draw the line?

do you realize you can change a magazine in less than a second? if somebody wanted to kill a bunch of people... say 26. all they would have to bring was 3 ten round mags. wow such an unconvience for the shooter. not.

the Assault weapon ban, and numerous (communist) states with laws restricting magazine size, have proven such restrictions have ZERO effect on crime.

but no, you would rather have unconstitutional and inneffective laws pass just to make you feel good.

i suggest you watch this video. skip to 3:45 if you just want to see the part about the stupidity of restricting mag sizes.

except thats not how it works. Ms. Smith's right to own any gun she wants, ends at the point when she decides she wants to use it on Mr. Thompson. and Mr. Thompson's right to voice his feelings on not liking guns, ends at the point he decides to take it frim Ms. Smith.

If a nuclear device does not provide any form of self-defense, then I'd like to know why the US government spent billions, or even trillions of dollars developing nuclear arms in a race against the Soviet Union in the tactic of Mutually Assured Destruction in the late 20th century for. In a state of Total War, against any kind of "tyrannical reigime", everything is on the table in order to maintain power. This INCLUDES the use of nuclear weapons that happen to be at their disposal. Like many gun fanatics have argued, that more guns would reduce crime as nobody would want to shoot at anyone, a tyrannical reigime would be too afraid of unloading their nuclear payload without getting a similar retaliation aimed back towards them.

You cannot quote what the founding fathers' intentions are, because the sad fact is that nuclear devices did not exist in such a time. the Second amendment calls for "the right to keep and bear arms" in a well-regulated malitia. Nuclear arms are still arms, sorry to inform you.

So once again, why should we be working by the limits that YOU deem acceptable?

"Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.^[69] Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban."

"Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Furthermore, military grade weapons not being the sort of weapons that are possessed at home that would be brought to militia duty are not the sort of lawful weapon conceived of being protected. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."^[73] Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and weapons like it – are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection."

And no, the weapons in the "Assault weapon" ban aren't military weapons. 

double post

triple post

It did act as a deterrent in the Cold War, but its use would've been retalitory, not a matter of self-defence (one would die regardless.) Hence, it is not a weapon to defend one's life, liberty, or property: it's just a payback device. Meanwhile, a semi-automatic weapon is a defensive weapon first and foremost and while it can be used as a retalitary device, it also has that valid of use of self-defence whilst a nuclear weapon does not. Furthermore, a tyrranical regime would not use Nuclear Weapons on the population who they deem fit to govern, in their own homeland, hence it would make very little sense to fear a domestic enemy who has nuclear weapons. However; if we really needed them, in the event of tyranny, we'd take them with the use of semi-automatic weapons. 

Then if it's such a small inconvenience, you wouldn't have a problem with this legislation.