I am a former member of the NRA, but left when it seemed to me that it was getting too political. In the 1970s and 1980s I kept a shotgun and a backpack full of shells in the trunk of my car in case of a Russian invasion. I continue to own a number of shotguns and handguns for personal defense purposes and hunting ducks. I am a gun rights advocate in terms of believing that law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess rifles, shotguns and handguns for home defense. However, I have never considered buying an assault rifle, because assault rifles are not good for home defense or hunting. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/02/gun_control_ar_15_rifle_the_nra_claims_the_ar_15_rifle_is_for_hunting_and.html I agree with Ashbury that people may be talking past each other on this issue. Clearly, in a revolution against the government an assault rifle would be much deadlier than a hunting rifle, a shotgun or a handgun. On the other hand, it seems to me that an assault rifle would be ineffective against government forces who have drones, armored assault vehicles, helicopters and smart bombs. Therefore, I agree with those who feel that defense against government oppression is not a good reason to allow access to assault rifles, but I can understand why people who believe that they may eventually be facing government forces would want as much firepower as possible. As for the Second Amendment, even if you can somehow ignore the part about a well regulated militia, it seems to me that no one is arguing that people should be allowed to own machine guns or RPGs, so we all seem to agree that the Second Amendment is not absolute and that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.