I've been following this thread since my initial comments in it. And my position has shifted some. Now I find myself seeing each side of this argument squarely from the middle. To illustrate this, let me boil this down to extremes, and then look at a sliding scale. On the far left of the scale is a single-shot break-barrel 30-06. On the far right of the scale is an NFA registered full-auto BAR.
You can argue that the single-shot rifle is woefully inadequate for home defense or any other tactical application. It's been outdated for a long time. But then you can argue that if it's all you have, it's a damned good idea to be proficient with it. And if it's all you have, then yes, it absolutely beats trying to defend your home/property/whatever with a 9 iron.
Likewise, you can argue that the full auto BAR is WAY overkill, and that it opens too many liability and other legal problems after the fact. But to counter that argument, if you're in a deadly force encounter and you have a BAR, well... you'll probably be the one who's alive at the trial. Judged by twelve versus carried by six and all that.
So where we are, is really a matter of splitting hairs. Many of us believe that due to weapons advances of the past fifty years, the lever gun is way too far to the left on that scale. It seems that many others feel they don't NEED to be quite so darned far to the right of that scale. But the reality is, both positions are correct.