Until they have to thaw all those NRA 'criminals' to stop the evildoers terrorizing the future liberal utopia by using this thing called 'violence' and weapons called 'guns'.

Who seriously trades guns and profanity for Taco Bell?

I wouldn't even trade money for Taco Bell. 

I think you may be gravely misrepresenting the relevant portion of the Heller opinion: 
"
    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. 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. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. 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. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.²⁵
"

The Heller opinion specifically recoils from the earlier Miller opinion's conflation of military arms with personal arms.  This is literally the opposite of what you said, unless you and I have very different definitions of "militia".  This does not necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong (or right*).  But other conclusions based on the same misinterpretation would be highly suspect. 

*I would certainly argue that minimally modified assault rifles qualify as "dangerous and unusual" firearms. 

China has not, and never will be, interested in invading America. 

Scalia (who wrote the Heller decision) didn't equivocate the military and the militia. The militia included all persons capable of military service, but weren't necessary members of a military. 

“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. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

Assault rifles are already heavily regulated, because they have selective fire (can switch to fully automatic setting) and because they weren't in common use when their regulations were imposed. 

If you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, they aren't unusual. Semiautomatics make up something like 25% of all new rifles produced, and a majority of  newhandguns produced.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/u-s-gun-manufacturers-have-produced-million-guns-since/article_76eb7a60-54a4-58be-9022-f572a3588142.html

"The National Rifle Association has estimated that 25 percent of all rifles produced in the United States are AR-15s or other semiautomatic styles, while other gun groups have said the ratio is closer to 50 percent."

I was objecting to your earlier claim that "The Supreme Court in D.C vs. Heller made the decision on the following grounds: that the weapons be in "common use" by the militia."  Scalia's opinion, to the best of my current understanding (I admit I have read only portions of the opinion, not its entirety), does not view the term "militia" as a still-relevant term for describing the body of protected persons.  But in any case now that you've clarified what you mean by "militia" I am not aware of any reason to think we have fundamental disagreement on that subject. 

There is a strong incentive for some groups to inflate the numbers for the very reason that you are now using those potentially inflated numbers.  Thanks to the NRA and other gun advocacy groups, there is little in the way of comprehensive data.  However, assault rifles have become very popular in the last decade (or ever since that law expired in 2004), so I'm inclined to find the 25% figure credible for newly manufactured rifles.  But I'm very skeptical of your 50 million figure (for existing semi-automatic rifles) because even the NRA estimates the number at more like 9 to 15 million. 

P.S.  Wow, the gun industry is very sick when a company like Remington is so dependent on anti-gun-control hysteria that total Republican control of the government prompts it to declare bankruptcy.  (your source)

1. From what I gather, Scalia uses the definition of the term militia used by the framers to derive whose weapons are protected and which criteria for "common use" should be used: merely the military's or all persons capable of military service? The term is used more than 150 times in the decision, so I am skeptical that he viewed "militia" as irrelevant. 

  "Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “militias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them."

2. Here are some statistics from 1994 when there were an estimated 192 million guns in the U.S (Source)

"The data collected by Cook and Ludwig show that 40 percent of both handguns and rifles in American households were semi-automatics"

"Today, that percentage is most likely higher, given the popularity of the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and of Glock’s handguns and others that have knocked off its design. The distribution of ammunition magazine capacity will also be different than it was 15 years ago given the growing popularity of semi-automatic rifles and of large-capacity handguns. Nearly 80 percent of ammunition magazines owned by gun owners at the time of the Cook and Ludwig survey held fewer than 10 rounds. A recent market survey of owners of semi-automatic assault rifles, what the industry is rebranding as the “Modern Sporting Rifle,” showed that 63 percent of owners of these guns had ammunition magazines that held more than 10 rounds."

If we merely extrapolate we get ~ 50 million semi-automatic rifles and ~50 million semi-automatic handguns, assuming a total gun count of 350 million, and assuming the ratio of semi-automatic/total guns sold remained the same (which is probably not true.) 

Now of course this was an estimate, but it gives us a ballpark idea. The statistic you provided was of "assault-style rifles" which is an arbitrary category narrower than all semiautomatics. 

Not even if it was the last restaurant chain on the planet? How would you impress a date enough to bring them back for some VR 'relations'?

If there is one thing the civil rights movement and the liberation of India shows, is that it´s not the weapons that are the threat to dictators, but rather the will of the people. 

And the last part is just not relevant, since this question is not about giving up the right to bear arms, but rather what weapons people should be allowed to have. For example, your free speech isn´t unlimited, just as your right to bear arms isn´t unlimited. You always give up some parts of every right you have, the important thing is that those limitations should be put into context of how your rights can infringe on other peoples rights, put them in dagnger and so on.

1.  What I meant by "still-relevant" was the question of whether Scalia considered the term to still have currency with that meaning in the 21st century outside of the historical context of the drafting of the Constitution (or other historical discussions).  The word being in the opinion 150 times given the amount of discussion devoted to militias of both types is not evidence either way, nor is it surprising.  However, the quote you provided would seem to support your position. 

2.  I guess I was unclear on whether you were talking about the entire category of all forms of semi-automatic rifle, or the category contained within it of assault-style semi-automatic rifles.  (It is only the latter that people are concerned will be subjected to restrictions or bans.)  Your 50 million figure was originally given in response to "is that right infringed if assault rifles are not part of the picture? If you have the right to own a hunting rifle, you do have the right to bear arms." (emphasis added)