It is a general rule not to entertain hypotheticals in a debate of logic, but let me disregard that sound advice for a moment: Fully-automatic weapons in each of your hands -- mom, sons, you -- would do the trick. A squad of lightly-trained and lightly-armed irregulars, when dug in, can pose an insurmountable obstacle to an equally-equipped force many times the defenders size. Use terrain as a force-multiplier. Since I place full-auto armaments in the light-regulation category, in Laz's world, you would be able to get such weaponry by undergoing a 5 minute criminal and mental background check.
Perhaps. But if you anticipate such an attack, then you go on the offensive and you make use of whatever is available to destroy your enemies. Someone one said "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". Your interpretation of the Second Amendment should not require that I remain weak in the face of a recognized threat.
But what would stop the CRIMINALS from posessing anything more significant? Let's face it - criminals want victims, the more defenseless the better. Statistically it has been proven time and time again that tighter regulations on weapons increases the rate of crime, and that removing those restrictions decreases crime - especially concealed carry legislation. The criminals can't be sure that everyone is not packing.
Even though I posess a CCW, when I carry, I almost always carry open. I'm not out to plug somebody, I just want to be left alone. If the sight of a large .45 on the hip doesn't deter them, not much would. The same goes for indiscriminate weapons - the law is not going to deter the criminal, but the possibility of retaliation will.
Which begs the final point. It's not a question of equalization, it's about the rights of NON-criminals. If faced with 1 assailant, 10 or 100, it's not a question of limiting my response, it's ending the threat.