Should the D.C. Handgun Ban Have Been Overturned?

First of all, Glock does not make rapid-fire model that is legal for civilians to own in this country. The Glock model 18 (The only fully automatic model) is a machine gun. See: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

Secondly, the D.C. ban also covered all iterations of rifles and shotguns-- Even one round capacity models, unless they were disassembled. This means that the right to keep and bear arms was infringed. Remember that single-round capacity was well within the framework of the 2nd amendment and was very popular in the time of the framers.

I suggest you re-read the opinion passed down in the Heller court and point out its error(s) which would cause it to be overturned by some future court:

"On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law . Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."[33] This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.[34]
The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:
that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with, but does not detract from, the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).
However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense". Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v . _Heller

"I am still waiting for you or someone else to explain why anyone would need a concealed handgun except to use it against someone else with a concealed handgun"

I'll take a stab, even recognizing that all the facts, figures, statistics, anecdotes, and logic in the world will have absolutely no effect on your thinking. But fortunately the facts and figures are on my side, so it's not really all that much effort.

First, let's take a hypothetical situation. Imagine you are a petite female - say 5'5" and 120lbs. You are walking to your car after work, or in a parking lot at the mall or whatever. Now imagine that you are confronted by a big, scary thug intent on making your money his money. He's 6' tall and weighs in at about 200lbs. Not a monster, but far from a shrimp. What do you think is the one tool that will put these two on equal footing? A knife? Pepper spray? Even a baseball bat or tire iron? None of those would come even close. However, if you are carrying a 9mm Glock loaded with jacketed hollow points, all of a sudden the 6' attacker has been brought down to your level and chances are both you and he will go home in the same condition you left the house .

What about real situations? On April 2 of this year, a lady I know watched in horror as her husband was murdered right in front of her by a man she knew to be stalking her. She was attempting to have the man removed from the premises when he drew a pistol, fought off two men trying to stop him, and shot her husband in the back of the head, killing him instantly. He then emptied his 5 remaining rounds from his revolver into his lifeless body. If she had been permitted to carry a gun in the restaurant where they were, she would have had an opportunity to stop him. She was a legal carry permit holder at the time, and had a gun, but it was locked in her car just outside the restaurant as the law required.

Now I have a question for you. Without digressing into what could be or should be - in other words fully accepting the reality of the country in which we live as painted by you - can you tell me why I shouldn't carry a concealed handgun? People are attacked every day by violent criminals. And I have a family. I therefore consider it my personal responsibility to do everything within my power to ensure their safety. And since there are people that are intent on doing others harm, should I not use every legal means at my disposal to ensure my family is not among them? If I knew had the capability and means to protect my family but refused to do what was necessary and something happened to one of them on my watch, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror. So can you tell me why I should not do everything in my power to keep them safe ?

I'll leave it at that until next time. I look forward to your response.