[speedrrracer]

The scenario in the OP is kind of a silly, extremely narrow and unlikely event. If such a thing were to occur, fine, but here in reality, maestro pistolero & wyobohunter showed us it's kinda pointless.

wyobohunter:

The antis could counter that they didn't have semi auto firearms with 30 rd magazines when the 2A was written.

We are beyond this. Heller's common use test shows us that whatever firearms were available in 1791 has no bearing on how the 2A effects us today.

Devil's advocate - Congresswoman Gifford's husband made the point that with 10 round mags, you can tackle the guy at the reload.

Heard this a few times, and it always stuns me with it's stupidity. I guess Gabby's husband can be forgiven; he's been through more than his brain can handle already. Among the many flaws from which is suffers (that have not already been mentioned) are:

1) You don't necessarily know when the bad guy runs out of ammo and is about to reload, nor might you be reasonably expected to know how long it will take the bad guy to effect a reload / reaquisition of targets

2) Requiring heroism (tackling a murderer with a gun when you are unarmed == heroism) as a baseline is ridiculous beyond words. Heroes are awesome, we love them, but cowards have rights, too.

3) Any argument getting into "tactics" (as this one obviously does) are for rational basis scrutiny. Heller clearly established that the RKBA will receive higher than rational basis scrutiny.

wyobohunter:

Yes, and I feel the statement "ubiquitously present in the population" answers the question "then shouldn't you be allowed nuclear weapons... Etc" very nicely.

I've heard the slippery slope nukes argument. Sheesh

Gura says the "ubiquitously present in the population" argument is flawed, and not to be used. If we follow it, then what happens when a new model of gun comes out? What about a brilliant new gun that's invented and is safer, more reliable and more accurate? It's OK to stop forward technological progress? No. Gura says to read Heller's common use test as "in common use or would be in common use".

Also, Heller defined for us the meaning of "bear" in RKBA, and it does mean to carry. If you can carry a cruise missile or an aircraft carrier, maybe you're beyond the rule of law.

Lastly, Heller did remind us of limits on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, so even if you had a backpack nuke that could be carried, still not protected by the 2A.