The largest mass killings of civilians in the US were either a) done without a single firearm or b) perpetrated by the government and not other civilians. Disarming civilians will not stop violence. It will however prevent the citizens from having a last recourse should democracy fail.
Well, I don't have a fear that democracy will fail ... meaning; even if the Conservative faction have both houses of Congress, the Presidency and pack the court with like minded thinkers and then go about gerrymandering the districts or method of selection to their favor, I don't worry about that.... I don't worry about much. Not even the potential for bad folks to do what they do to me personally.
What concerns me is the notion that the absence of specificity in the Constitution is somehow indicative of absence of Rights. To the contrary, and as indicated by any fair reading of the Federalist and other commentary of the time the absence of specifics should be seen as the broadest assumption of Rights to the People and the broadest restriction on government to reduce those Rights. It is why I'd support your ownership of a bazooka if you wanted one... or heck, a tank maybe.
The Courts have held that the mental capability of the individual in many arena is a primary consideration. Aside from that what level of scrutiny is appropriate to sustain a State compelling interest as it applies to guns or 2nd Amendment Rights..... I can see Felons and the Nutty as being reasonable use of the restriction but not the type of gun or its magazine...
It was contemplated that tyranny along with hunting, self defense and defense of the nation generally made up the factors (but not totally) to establish the 2nd... I don't see that all of those considerations have disappeared so if any exist they force 2nd Amendment compliance...
The question is; who is precluded from enjoying that Right and on what basis...
EDIT: Although Madison didn't know what kind of 'Arms' might be developed down the road he sure was smart enough to know there would be improvements. It is for us today to define what is prudent today, therefore. We have yet to do that and until we do Amend the Constitution we must abide by it.... Seems to me