The ban of Assault Rifles in the United States of America.

Con states- "The ban of assault rifles in our country is openly against the 2nd amendment"Demonstrates the extent of the illiteracy of the common folk! That our schools fail to properly teach the english language is self evident. I GIVE YOU THE The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. But it should not! It is plainly stated. It does not stipulate by definition and wording the authorization nor RIGHT of the PEOPLE to own WEAPONS OF WAR- save in the capacity of MILITIA!Read it again! "A well regulated Militia, being necessary/ the right of the people to keep and bear Armslet's look at that by defintion shall we?Definition;Militia noun: militia; plural noun: militias a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. Now for the REALLY DENSE- Organized militia. Each state has two mandatory forces, namely the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces. (are we learning yet?) National Guard/Reserve (who HAVE tanks, and weapons of War!) but they CANNOT TAKE THEM HOME!You have a Right to bear arms- but NOT BEING MILITIA restricts in common sense and practicality, the rights of "THE PEOPLE" to OWN TANKS OR WEAPONS OF WAR! End of subject! Thank you for playing have we or have we NOT common sense!The reasoning powers of the founding fathers are obviously more suited to Patriots of State/Country. Being Mature Individuals, with a high degree of competence, fair play and equality of mind, these people set up a Nation. in essense more suited to thinking along the Line of myself and others of National interest above self gratification standards.and theose less than 21? Forget about it! Evidence of History- That NO CANNON WAS personally owned by individual persons in the entire Country, save Business concerns and even THEN sparingly ... like maybe 2 in the whole country! Demonstrates that weapons of War were OUTSIDE the RIGHT of ownership of the common man!so unless you can show evidence- like the kind just revealed to you above? Your just staing like everyone ELSE .... opinion. and opinion isn't evidence of TRUTH!Now THIS is an example of persons LYING to attempt to persuade others into BELIEVING their opinions .... no evidence mind you ... just opinion;Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons, and many did. It was very common for private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen" - so yes, "arms" definitely did include cannons.https://www.reddit.com...Now lets LOOK at this statement CAREFULLY with UNSHADED glasses. also note he states MANY but gives NO EVIDENCE of the many (NONE) , only militia (merchant ships)Yes, private citizens were allowed to own cannons ( notice this extremely biased opinion- opinion mind you- not evidence!)Now note the BIG EVIDENCE this misguided prejudiced fellow uses- private merchant ships (for example) to be equipped with cannons. They were called "armed merchantmen"Now let US LOOK at this statement a moment- PRIVATE? Merchant ships that transport Goods, are FAR from PRIVATE- they carry , Treasures, Stores, Humanity- being aware of course of Pirates which exist even today- those ... UHHHH supposed private Vessels REQUIRED protection ..... TODAY WE CALL THEM THE COAST GUARD! And Yes they HAVE weapons of war, they are tasked to protect the lanes of shipping which did not exist in this time but emerged later on! that however isn't proof of anything but self prejudice. Let them actually provide proof of common everyday folks owning cannons, not those who it just made sense that the need for security and protection was common sense necessity!Who owned a Cannon in antiquity to protect his home, outside royalty, Monarchs and such .... answer ZERO!so no proof other than opinion? FORGET ABOUT IT!So yes these prejudiced people spin yarns "higher than haman" but sadly ZERO evidence is ever forth coming! just opinion after opinion, with nothing to back up their assertions , yet History itself DEMONSTRATES the common folk did NOT have cannons! PERIOD! which were weapons of War!