Instead of arguing what CAN be banned, why not argue WHY it SHOULD be banned?
That is the exact point the anti-gun lobby fails on and I will use your next point to prove it.
If this is something that you feel that you can deliver on, I will be glad to address every point you would like to make. I would be glad to provide you with every bit of statistical and factual evidence against any weapons that SHOULD (in terms not of my own) should be banned.
My least favorite debate tactic is when people bring nuclear weapons and incendiary devices to the argument. Nuclear weapons serve no individual uses in that they cannot be controlled, they will destroy those looking to harm you, but will also cause collateral damage around them and harm those that are innocent, under no circumstances do these weapons serve legitimate second amendment uses and present a clear and present danger, therefore it is necessary to ban them, and public safety is provable, therefore it is a proper check to the right. Explosive devices can become unstable and not only injure those that are in posession, but also can harm those within the vicinity, however explosive devices should be allowed by license, issuance should be determined through a psych evaluation and competancy testing. I don't even have a problem with a federal licensing to own fully automatics and other illicitly banned firearms, however the current licensing system is prohibitively expensive and requires a need past that which follows the intent of the second, a license should be easily acquired for those arms, need not necessary, reasonably priced, and psych/competancy tests to prove the applicant is stable.