"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

This is my argument from another debate: First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U.S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime. Now I will address your argument. Here is the full 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." Notice the, "... Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, "Arms." Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too. Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, "We the people have the right to keep and bear arms", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No. Now onto your argument. " If you don't think anyone should own that gun, then don't own that gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a weapon." - Yes, but the effects of people owning guns can be felt when you get shot. "yes. That does say a well regulated militia, but do you see that tiny little comma in between that and "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't say "the right of the people in the militia" and it doesn't say "the right of the people who are police" and it doesn't say "the right of the people in the military" it says "the right of the people" the American people." - Can you prove what that comma means? Unless you can't, your argument is useless. The comma was mearly a grammatical comma. Anyway, this amendment is about technology. Tech changes over time. And circumstances change too. I would fully support this amendment in the 1700s. Why? Becaus the only guns were inaccurate, slow-to-reload, one shot muskets. And their was no strong military to stop attacks, so it makes sense that we need the people to be armed. But now we have the strongest military in the world, and our guns have hundred-round clips, that can be reloaded within 5 seconds, and are accurate for hundreds of yards. This means that the amendment is outdated, and needs updating. An example? Imagine if all the laws around drones are never changed again. In 20 years, when the public has access to drones with LMGs, bombs, and spy cameras on them, you would think the law needs an update. This is the same for guns. Your hunting argument is one I never heard before. Can you provide a link that will make this rebuttal make sense? "If you believe in gun control, you are being lied to." - As I have shown in this debate, that is not the case. Some people might attack me for my arguments, as they are mostly focused on gun control in general. However, my opponent takes many jabs at gun control throughout, and he makes no laws regarding kritkiks, so my arguments are valid. I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response. [1] https://img.njdc.com...... [2] http://www.gunpolicy.org...... [3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...... [4] http://www.gunpolicy.org......