Had to look that up, but yes. That's essentially explosives with a fancy delivery system.
I'll explain my rational. When you talk about things like an MLRS(or fully armed tanks warplanes from the previous example) you're talking about something that even if it were available to those who could afford it it would be a limited number of people due to sheer cost(historic comparison, a wealthy person(s) could have bombarded <insert coastal city> with a frigate or man of war, when that was the pinnacle of massed mobile artillery), because of this cost these same people could achieve similar results via other currently unregulated means or regulated but achievable under false pretenses if they were determined to cause harm.
The average person or persons determined to cause harm may not be able to achieve the same level of destruction as the wealthy,but take the OKC bombing for example. Granted some of the materials(blasting caps and the small amount of prefab explosives) used in that instance would be difficult to acquire legally(under false pretenses) or illegally, but even then it still happened. The information contained in a high school chemistry book and/or sources from the internet is more than enough for a person of average means to cause widespread harm.
Do I think that people should just be given explosives etc or that they should be completely unregulated? no... However, I do believe that if someone is intent on causing harm on a large scale lacking access to pre-fabricated implements of destruction will not stop them, and the tools(knowledge) needed to do so simply cannot(and should not) be controlled at this stage of civilization. I also believe that even if explosives and the such were less regulated, not everyone would run out and buy them making them pervasive. Tannerite is a good example of this, being freely available in many locations, people have done some dumb things with it but nothing maliciously criminal AFAIK.
Simply put, there are clearly some things(nukes & other true WMDs(what constitutes this is debatable)) that shouldn't be in the hands of the public. However most things that people perceive to be too dangerous would either be too costly to pose a real threat or similar levels of harm could be caused by alternate but readily available means.
I don't expect the line to be moved greatly and there definitely is one, but in the context of full auto that barely registers to me as something that's worthy of high regulation because of its danger to the general public.