Wow, you are clueless. I live in hurricane country--I can be plunged into a world without communication with the police pretty much any summer. I grew up in an area that was at least 20 minutes from police protection. Defense is the reason that normal people buy guns. I'm glad we don't have many people like you in the states. You weren't raised by a forensic psychiatrist. My late father was a forensic psychiatrist who worked for a state (won't mention which, since that would make it easy to identify me). At one time, he had spoken with every person that was up on murder charges in the state. With the horror stories he'd read in case file and the evil he had talked to, he was very vigilant and concerned about self defense. There is evil in the world, and the 10 minutes it would take to get a policeman for help is too long. You've lived a sheltered life if you don't see a need for self defense, which, IMHO, is the only reason we have a right to bear arms.
It's clear you refuse to understand why an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. Rational, reasoned people do, and they are not swayed by such things. This is why the things you want will never come to pass.
The first commercial magazine fed semi-automatic rifle available in the U.S. was the Winchester Model 1905.
Not a gunsmith, but I've been around guns. Pretty much what you are saying is useless. The cycle time doesn't really make much of a difference in how fast the gun fires. Most of the time between shots is used for regaining the target in the sights, not waiting for the gun to cycle.
Shooting wild hogs isn't meant to be sporting. Wild hogs are an invasive menace that are rampaging and destroying the habitat of native wildlife and destroying a lot of crops. Shooting the wild hogs is more like extermination than hunting.
I'm sure you then agree you cell phone conversations are not protected by the 4th nor CNN by the 1st. Fact: Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Fact: If you don't like it, you can amend the Constitution.