OK, you're right, you win. Screw it, nuclear weapons, kids with grenades, felons with anti-aircraft guns, it's all just fine. Those things all infringe upon the 2nd amendment. There is no such thing as "common sense regulation".
Anyone willing to take such a stance has no common sense.
Again with the tired old straw man. Weapons of mass destruction and high explosives are very different things than full auto firearms and anyone who can't see that probably doesn't have much common sense (which isn't nearly as common as the name implies). As I said before, the burden of proof when restricting a right is supposed to be on the government rather than on the people. The degree of destruction, both intentional and collateral, that WMD's and high explosives cause is sufficient to outweigh the loss of liberty that prohibiting them represents. Full auto firearms, however, are not nearly as destructive and, IMHO, their prohibition does not represent a significant enough interest to public safety to justify the abridgment of rights entail with banning them.
As to felons with guns, you must remember that, in our attempt to legislate away all of our problems, we've turned a copious number of crimes into felonies and many of them have nothing to do with violence. A person convicted of income tax evasion is no less a felon than someone convicted of first degree murder, but the danger to society that those two people represent is worlds apart. In my estimation, once a person has served their sentence and paid their debt to society, their rights should be fully restored. By telling someone that, due to the crime they committed, they can never again be trusted with a firearm we are basically telling them that they are so dangerous as to be beyond rehabilitation. The way I see it, if someone is a dangerous criminal beyond rehabilitation, they should either be executed or remain locked up in prison as they have no business in society regardless of whether they have a gun or not.