My issue is primarily with the justifications being used for various proposed regulations with regard to firearms. They seem to be less based on an assessment of facts and more on emotional reactions.
Nope. They aren't. They're based on the fact that *access* to firearms that can kill a lot of people quickly by people seeking to use them in a crime is increased in proportion to their general availability. Just like high explosives. The issue is really one of complexity. Semi-automatic firearms are reasonably complex. I could make one at home out of stock metal, but most would be armed robbers can't. That's the crux of the gun control argument. Why make it easy to acquire reasonably complex killing machines designed to kill en masse quickly?
The 2nd amendment is law, and that's fine, but there's ample space to enforce the "well regulated" text along with the "not be infringed" text. We'll set aside for a moment that a stockpile of 10,000 assault rifles isn't going to help you against the flying killer robot if the government decides to kill you. The original idea that this right would somehow keep governmental military power in check is long, long dead. Restricting cyclic rate or mag capacity is a perfectly rational thing to do, likely to lead to a decline in the death toll of these sorts of events. It would be objectively better if that were the case. If it isn't the case, there's virtually no harm. Hunters don't need 25 shots, and honestly, neither do people defending themselves or their homes. Nobody gets to the sixth shot, really, in a legitimate defensive situation, a Colt Navy would be as useful as Glock 17 (although not so amazingly well designed and smooth to operate, @#%^ing Austrians know how to make killing people effortless, I'll give them that)
These are the sort of laws you're worrying are based on emotion...making 35 shot clips for Chinese AK clones illegal. They aren't. They're considered policy decisions. There are no "take all the guns away!" laws even being considered. No one's adversely effected by the laws being considered who isn't involved in an ongoing dispute with a Mexican drug cartel.