For pure civilian defense against not-very-organized criminals, I agree. (Although if a Glock with a 15-round clip is suddenly an assault weapon, I think the word warriors went a bit too far.) However I disagree with Breyer and now Sotomayor who discount the 2nd as a "fundamental right".
Here's the irony: if nobody doubted that the right to self-defense was fundamental, there'd be much less call to argue about weapons of war. But in my estimation, the two are linked. The rationale for civilly-owned weapons of war, mayhem and destruction is that it puts the people on a practical footing to challenge the government. It is my belief that the 2nd is exactly about that. By mounting an assault on the individual nature of this article in the [word!] Bill of Rights, the Federal government is setting itself up to brook none of the most direct dissent. All jmo.
Prohibition is never a good idea. cn