Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,The first problem.....you have to understand how Constitutional Analysis works and how the court goes about determining whether a ban meet Constitutional muster.
If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.If you actually believe that the Supreme Court would find that having possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" THAT is the first error in your analysis...and when you begin your analysis with an error, it is unlikely your final analysis will be correct.