That would ban everything, save maybe paintball guns and stun guns. There is always risk to bystanders when bullets and such start flying. The average deer rifle, well maybe not 30-30s, will penetrate clean through your neighbor down the block's house, should you use it to defend your life and property, and miss.
I don't see any exception in the second amendment for "dangerous arms" or "hazardous arms". Even a Brown Bess musket was a pretty nasty thing, and inaccurate as all get out, so misses, with the attending risk to bystanders, were almost guaranteed. Of course the colonials, especially colonial militia, were more likely to have rifles than were the Redcoats. In fact early exercise of Congress' power to provide for arming the militia allowed the more western regions' militias to provide them selves with rifles, while the more settled areas' militias were to provide themselves with muskets, of a uniform caliber. Even then Congress did not actually provide arms to the militia, but only provided the requirements for how they should arm themselves in regards to militia service.
Let me rephrase that: When you can't employ said force in self-defense or the defense of others without an extremely high likelihood (i.e., >99%) of violating many (as in thousands and beyond) others' rights to the quiet enjoyment of their liberty and property, that's where the 2nd Amendment ends.
Implied in the right to keep and bear arms is the right to USE those arms. That you have to go to such preposterous lengths to create scenarios where said use might be marginally justifiable illustrates the magnitude of the problem.