Let's take things up a notch at a time.
And lets look at the parts Aquila didn't focus on..
Full-Auto Weapons: Far higher cyclic rate than semi-autos means a lot more lead down range in a shorter period of time. Before you disagree and say full-auto guns are hard to control and run out of ammo quickly, what about belt fed guns? What about vehicle mounted weapons such as mini guns? I am okay with the NFA because there is a much stricter vetting process with the BATF. The cost of getting pre-ban weapons would preclude most people from being able to purchase them.
First, in this case, you are mis-using the term "cyclic rate". You are confusing it with "rate of fire" and they are NOT the same thing. The cyclic rate is the rate, expressed in rounds per minute that the action cycles. It is the amount of time between the firing of one cartridge and the firing of the next. It is the amount of time it takes the action to cycle (between firings) the time needed for the bolt mechanism to extract and eject the fired case and then load a new round into the chamber, ready to fire again.
Rate of fire, is the amount of rounds that can be physically fired, by an individual or gun crew in a given time period. This is ALWAYS less than the cyclic rate, and sometimes a lot less. Any magazine fed weapon will always have a rate of fire far less than the cyclic rate of the action.
And, for our purposes here, discussion of belt fed, crew served and vehicle mounted weapons, ALL of which have been under the NFA since 1934, is a red herring.
Explosives: This would include grenades, mortars, bazookas, etc. I know that people have make their own explosives (Timothy McVeigh), but those materials are now monitored. How much deadlier could someone hell bent on destruction be if they had unlimited access to those types of devices?
Again, already covered by various Federal and state laws. However in point of fact, anyone who didn't sleep through high school chemistry DOES have unlimited access to the raw materials. I'd be willing to bet you have enough in your house at this very moment. Are you aware that there are, literally, millions of detonators in the hands of private citizens coast to coast at this very moment?? The materials are everywhere, what isn't, fortunately, is the knowledge and the will to use them as weapons.
Military Vehicles: If you are going to argue that any American citizen should have the same access to all the equipment that our military does, who not tanks and fighter jets? These items are obviously very expensive, but they can also be very deadly in the wrong hands.
You can legally own tanks and fighter jets. If you have the $. The tank cannon's ammo is regulated, the machine guns are regulated, the fighter jet's cannon and missiles are regulated. The vehicles themselves are only regulated as the class of vehicles they are.
I've met private citizens who own tanks, APCs and even fighter jet aircraft. No law prohibits this.
Nukes: If we are to really have access to all the weaponry our military has, you'll have to include nukes. I don't believe you really believe that any "law abiding citizen" should have access to nukes do you?
Ok, now the ultimate absurdity, nukes. I actually do believe that a law abiding citizen should have access to nukes, under the law. (ALL the terrible implements of the soldier), as a part of our fundamental rights. However, while the theory is valid, there is no practical way to legally possess one in the United States. I firmly believe you, as a law abiding citizen should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon,
IF YOU CAN BUILD IT ENTIRELY YOURSELF. If you can't there are already a plethora of laws covering purchase and ownership of the various components needed to build the bomb, and its way more than just the fissile material. Even if you could build it all yourself (and I mean from refining raw ore that you own into weapons grade material all the way to fabricating the mechanism needed for detonation) actually assembling it would be covered under the NFA as an explosive device, so building it would be a crime, if you didn't get government approval PRIOR to construction.
again, its a red herring.
At some point, I believe responsible gun owners need to stop suggesting that everyone just arm up and shoot back.
Why? it seems to have worked in the past.
Is there a way to prevent or reduce the occurrence of mass shootings, without totally trampling the rights of law abiding citizens??? I feel that is our responsibility as gun owners to figure that out.
When you get it figured out, do let the rest of us know, ok?
Is there a way to do it without trampling our rights? I would think there ought to be, but to date, none of the "usual suspects" is proposing anything that wouldn't trample at least some of our rights.
personally I don't feel it is my responsibility to find the solution to the problem, just as I don't feel I am responsible in any way when people I don't know, have never met and have no influence with commit evil, with, or without a firearm.
It is my responsibility to do what I can to see than any proposed solutions don't infringe on ANY of our rights.
If I ever see one that doesn't, and has even a tiny possibility of actually working, I'll support it.