The second amendment was written long before assault rifles were around. Back then they probably had muskets that were highly inacurate, and pistols that were also inacurate. You couldn't just go mow down a bunch of people at once. At most, you could take out a couple of people if you were really pissed at them.

I'm all for someone being able to have a pistol for personal protection, but there is absolutely no reason for anyone but our national defense and law enforcement to have assault rifles. Personally, I'd rather people not even have pistols, but I would be willing to accept that.

The most common argument I hear is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "guns are just inanimate objects." Does this mean I should be allowed to have bombs too? An assault rifle is pretty comparable to a small bomb in the possible casualties.

Bottom line, it's unnecessary to have anything more than maybe a pistol, and even then they should be highly regulated.