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. I guess, technically, the right to keep and bear arms, whatever they might be, "shall not be infringed". But that all ended in 1934 with the Gun Control Act of 1934. Machine guns, short barreled rifles & shotguns, etc, became regulated. Regulation, no matter how you define it, is infringement. So, we have already gone down that road. Such a big deal is made about Universal Background Checks. Aren't all handguns, post 1899, subject to this already? Longarms, if a private sale, are not. These are a small portion of overall sales, so really they are not regulating all that much more, although it is nice to have the option of going to a gun show, and purchasing a long arm, should I desire to do so, without a paper trail, as a paper trail can lead to registration and potential confiscation. Personally, when I complete Form 4473, I consider that to be infringement, and I am surprised that is allowed and required, but it is. BUT, this leads up to the whole point of this thread. IF you already have Gun Control Acts, which already have infringed the rights of law abiding citizens, why is such a big deal made about banning assault weapons? Again, like I said, I don't agree with paperwork and banning and infringement, but if this needs to be done, I don't have a problem with that per se. And here's why? What purpose do they serve other than to fire many shots in a short period of time? Can anyone explain why they are necessary over other available firearms, other than they could be fun to shoot? No real sportsmanship there, no skill in improving target practice skills, no needed for hunting or even self defense. I would still keep my nose out of this except for I think that the cause was really really damaged or hurt when the term "assault" was used to define many such weapons. How ever was that term used to describe such weapons and who coined it and why is it flagrantly abused? Like I said, it certainly does not help the cause, and using "assault" and "weapon" in the same sentence looks terrible to the general public, especially those with no firearms experience. Again, some random thoughts, but valid points, I think.