Stop pretending you care.

[Tartarus Sauce]

? Why else would you need an AR-15? Is it a choice weapon for farmers, for hunters? Is it the number one weapon for law enforcement? Is there an Olympic shooting event that requires expert training with an AR-15?

The 2nd Amendment is not defined by farming or hunting, rather it exists to arm the populace against government tyranny in order to protect the rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

While I'm not quite as on board with this snatching assault weapons as some others are, that well regulated militia clause was more expected to keep the state secure from external threats rather than internal despotism. While the English Bill of Rights of 1689 of which the Second Amendment drew its influence from, did explicitly secure the right to be free from forceful disarmament by the state, the Founding Father's intended the checks and balances of the Federal Republic to keep domestic tyranny at bay, not the arming of its citizens. Mob rule scared the sh**t out of them, they didn't want the masses deciding to burn the system down willy-nilly because of some perceived repression.

Once we attained an organized military, there was no longer a need for a well-regulated militia. I'm all in favor of people wanting to arm themselves, and I'm even willing to grant them their right to be paranoid of government repression. But this whole self-aggrandizing narrative of patriotic duty by excessive self-armament is bogus.

[Tartarus Sauce]

While I'm not quite as on board with this snatching assault weapons as some others are, that well regulated militia clause was more expected to keep the state secure from external threats rather than internal despotism. While the English Bill of Rights of 1689 of which the Second Amendment drew its influence from, did explicitly secure the right to be free from forceful disarmament by the state, the Founding Father's intended the checks and balances of the Federal Republic to keep domestic tyranny at bay, not the arming of its citizens. Mob rule scared the sh**t out of them, they didn't want the masses deciding to burn the system down willy-nilly because of some perceived repression.

Once we attained an organized military, there was no longer a need for a well-regulated militia. I'm all in favor of people wanting to arm themselves, and I'm even willing to grant them their right to be paranoid of government repression. But this whole self-aggrandizing narrative of patriotic duty by excessive self-armament is bogus.

Consider for a moment the fact the Brits had a organized military, yet the Founding Fathers took up arms against it.  So, to say the 2nd Amendment only grants gun rights until the forming of a organized military would make the whole American Revolution hypocritical, would it not?

Except that wasn't what I was implying. People should be allowed to own guns, but the original intention was rather different than the "pro-gun patriots" make it out to be. They've turned gun ownership into a patriotic duty as some kind of safeguard of government tyranny. Other than the fact that the system, in theory, isn't supposed to lead to or sustain despotism, if the government really did want to f**k you over and f**k you over good, armed citizens are no match against trained soldiers and their armaments and vehicles.

If that's they way people want to think, more power to them. I have my own concerns with the government and skepticism of our politicians' ability to govern effectively is rather fashionable, but I find the rhetoric of gun fetishists rather paranoid and silly.