You dont need that AR-15

The writings of the founding fathers show that their primary concern when they included the Second Amendment was not criminals or whitetail deer - it was a check on the government itself. Having just fought a war with a government, they identified that a citizen cannot form or join a militia with a simple handgun, they need to maintain comparable arms. You may be familiar with the text, so I'll summarize - the Militia, Defined as an armed citizenry (more or less) by 10 USC 311, is what was identified as necessary, not hunting or personal security. With that being said, the Supreme Court has held at least twice...once in the Miller case I believe, that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to own a weapon that is comparable to those of the military at the time of said citizen - (I.e. muskets in 1780's, M1's in WWII era and M-4/M-16 or "Bushmasters" today) or what folks are calling an assault rifle. I am not saying that every person needs to have an AR 15, what I am saying is that the Constitution is not about "needs", its about rights. My honest concern is that a few folks, using fear as a motivator for support, are seeking to impose their opinion (which is counter to the founding fathers', Constitution, and Supreme Court's) on every law abiding citizens (which is the definition in 10 USC 311 of the militia), under false pretenses and emotional straw-men arguments, when many of them have demonstrated complete ignorance of (at best) and total disdain for (at worst) guns in general. When the same people that said they have to pass a bill to find out what's in it (again demonstrating ignorance, apathy, or both) are looking at a hot-button issue like this, it is accurate to say that I fear that our elected officials are likely to err in the direction of taking away Second Amendment rights. It's about so much more than hunting rifles and handgunsSee More