A few corrections...
Selective fire and automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns) were not banned in the 1930s. The law that was passed then merely regulated them. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1985 banned the manufacture or importation of machine guns for US citizens, but still allows the transfer of existing weapons.
I think that the NFA of 1985 is an excellent example of why most gun owners oppose new laws so strongly. The NRA, against the wishes of its members, supported the NFA of 1985. They supported it because the number of people who want to deal with all the hassles of owning a machine gun are few, and there were more than enough of these weapons to satisfy the market. The primary concern of the NRA membership was that once you allow the government to selectively identify and ban a type of weapon, you're opening the door to other weapons being banned. The government and the NRA leadership said that would not be the case, and that non-selective fire weapons would not be banned.
Now, fast forward to 1994, and the NFA of 1994, and guess what happens? Goodbye semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity pistols.... exactly what gun owners were promised would not happen in 1985. So is it any wonder that we're so opposed to any legislation that promises to protect our future rights by removing some of our current ones? It's the "fool us once..." principle.
Another thing that bothers me is the perception that shooters are all out hunting. We are not. I have eight guns at my house, and I have never gone hunting with them. I take them out target shooting, and for the most part they just sit in the rack. I collect them the same way that people collect tea cups or beanie babies. This is why I get nervous when politicians, especially Democrats, start trying to court the shooters by saying they're hunters. No, I don't take my AR-15 or FN/FAL "assault rifles" out into the woods to blast Bambi, but I do take them to the range and I do like having them in my collection.
Is an "AK-47" a legitimate weapon? A threat? Well over a million of these weapons have been imported into the United States, and how many have been used in crimes? Less than 1% of them. There are more Hondas used in crimes each year, so should we ban them? In fact, shouldn't we ban any car capable of exceeding the speed limit? What legitimate purpose do they have? One other factoid about weapons like the "AK-47". These weapons fire a light-weight round that is designed to wound not kill. This is why when some nut job opens up on a group of people you end up with one or two people dead and dozens of wounded. If that same guy started shooting with a hunting rifle or shotgun, those numbers would be the opposite. Lastly, yes you can empty a 30-round magazine on an AR-15 or AK-47 quickly, but not "in seconds". Try pulling an imaginary trigger 30 times as fast as you can, and see how long it takes even without the resistance of a trigger and the impact of recoil. Your finger gets tired pretty quick, and firing a weapon that fast makes it impossible to maintain your aim and muzzle climb will have you shooting at the sky by about round 15.
I like gun laws like those in Florida or South Carolina, where you can go in, show your driver's license, get an insta-check run on you, and if you pass you take your gun. The government knows I have the gun, and I don't have to put up with a lot of hassles. But when you have a state like Maryland, who's government has made no secret of wanting to ban guns altogether, it's no surpise that gun owners put up a stiff fight when some politician comes along with a gun ban draped in the banners of safety or crime control. We see it for what it is.
