People who want to get rid of our rights are the main reason we need weapons that are useful for killing.
How did you "factually," rebut any of my assertions. All you did was reassert your own points. I will put my Savage tactical against any assault rifle any day of the week. The only possible rifle that could compare would be the Springfield M1, which is nowhere near an assault rifle.
As to preserving the rights of arms, lets be realistic, banning assault rifles is a far cry from taking away the right to bear arms. That is like saying placing limitations on any individual right is taking away all rights. Do I change my position? I do believe if harsher laws were placed on criminals, then no further gun control would be needed, but I also see the point of view of the police, for instance, that do not want to face an AK-47 as they serve a warrant.
Do you believe that a ban on say the Jewish Faith is not taking away my first amendment rights because I could attend a Methodist CHapel or Orthodox cathederal?
Therefore the people have to have ready for them the same weapons those troops would use. And that means fully automatic weapons. Otherwise they're going to face fully automatic weapons armed with muzzle-loading squirrel guns, cuz, really that's all ya need to put meat in the pot, right?
You guys really, really misunderstand the Founding Fathers. A militia in their eyes was not a neighborhood clan of guys with guns running to fight the tyrants of government. It was the right of each state to have a militia or national guard as the case presently is. By allowing for this provision, the founders built in a security to states rights from the federal government they hesitantly created. But all of the good ol'boys envision the founders thinking of the 80's movie Red Dawn, where average people run to the streets to defeat the Reds!!!!
Do you have the right to own a tank or a F-16? No, so you will not have equal force with your M16, will you?