Here is the Second Amendment: "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."
As this amendment is written, a ban of any particular weapon is an infringement. Note that the Second Amendment makes no mention of hunting/target shooting, but it does mention the security of a free state.
The AR-15 is no more deadly than most sporting or hunting rifles, and is not a "military style assault weapon." It may look similar in appearance, but it functionality is not the same.
With regards to magazine size, a 30-round magazine is not "high-capacity," it is standard capacity. A high-capacity magazine would be a 50-round, or 100-round drum magazine.
The terms "assault-style weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are terms coined by the legislators who wish to pass the new legislation. After all, when the Department of Homeland Security buys AR-15s they are called "personal defense weapons" but when citizens buy them they are "assault weapons."
Under the new legislation, criminals will still have access to standard capacity magazines, so why can't we defend ourselves with the same? The government won't tell us that the new legislation is infringing on the Second Amendment, just like they won't tell us that the changes in the NDAA 2012 violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, or that the SOPA act violates the First Amendment. But must they come out and tell us so plainly?
Anthony Lanzaro
Milford