Self-defense, large capacity magazines, Second Amendment

Gun crimes make big headlines.  However, when someone uses a gun to successfully defend themselves, it barely makes a media ripple. See this example.  It also makes the point that large-capacity magazines should not be banned as they assist with self-defense.  This intruder was shot five times and stilll got away (temporarily)  What if the victim is so scared they have trouble-shooting straight and/or there are numberous intruders?  A large capacity magazine may mean the difference between life and death for the homeowner. In full-size large-bore semi-automatics the stock double-stack magazines typically hold around 15-17 at most.  Given that the attacker probably has such a handgun with such a magazine, the law should not require the defender to be outmatched. I'm not advocating 100 round pistol magazines.  They would be too unwieldy and the user would shortly  be unable to control the weapon after firing a lot of shots.  Because of the dangerous muzzle climb of AR-15 bump-fire stocks, a good case could be made that they are unsafe and not suited for home defense and can be banned.  I'm not advocating that everyone keep a gun for self-defense. I'm not advocating that everyone keep a large-capacity semi-automatic pistol for defense.  I'm not advocating that people keep weapons they cannot safely handle. I'm advocating a realisitc approach that respects constitutional rights.
The essence of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have commonly used firearms for self-defense.  The right  is not absolute, but  government should not have unlimited power to control the instrument of exercising Second Amendment rights.