I read several arguements in a discussion group i belong to about the validity of individuals owning rifles such as an AR15. Now for what its worth my opinion is such weapons are not needed to protect oneself or property. Saw a video of a mother and daughter who were attacted by an armed robber in their store. Both were able to use handguns to disable the attacker till help arrived.
But this is not my piont as what some were saying is people need AR15 rifles and more to be able to sustain a peoples militia as for a 'militia of the people' as stated in the 2nd Amendment has to have access to the same weapons as the military it may be needed to overthrow. Now in the times of the constitution weapons were basic and an individual or group could easily arm themselves to a simalar level as the military. But if we apply that logic today world should individuals and militia groups have access to fully automatic weapons, high powered sniper rifles , shoulder mounter rocket launchers, frag grenades, claymores. And how far do you go with this? Drones, armed vechicles, artillery, short to long range balistic missiles and heaven forbid WMDs. The idea that indviduals or groups could possibly overthrow a modern government protected by a state of the art military is ludicrous and to use it as an argument to defend being able to own certain types of weapons is beyond belief. Sorry rant overš¤£