And to the previous poster I'll add that production of AR15-pattern rifles and carbines alone for the commercial market averages about 380K units per year since 2008. Adding in non-AR pattern "military style" rifles brings that number to about 480K per year, or about 20% of all rifles produced and sold commercially in the U.S. The AR15 is undoubtedly the most popular rifle in the U.S. and that includes a hell of a lot of folks who can't reasonably be classified as "rednecks."
Quoting production and sales numbers isn't likely to help with them, except to possibly scare them away from trying to pass gun grabbing laws that will result in massive resistance and/or civil war. We're holding our breath right now with Connecticut, which was surprisingly quite pro-gun in practice pre-Sandy Hook and which, due to passive resistance, has now created an estimated 300K felons, with the usual suspects calling for all of them to be prosecuted.
And a cherry on the top with Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance telling a newly made subject of the state, after she said "You're the servant, we're the master", that "I'm the master, ma'am. I'm the master"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxjuz2o9Gk; jump to the end).
I don't think these people understand the forces they putting into play.
The problem with HN comments is not just new users who do not know that the expectation is of colleagues discussing a problem to work to a solution, but also of long standing accounts that allow themselves to be "trolled" by emotive subjects.
Some people should stay away from gun control; abortion; Israel / Palestine; vi vs emacs; etc etc.
It'd be great to see some research on online communities where approaches to this have been tried.
Or you know, to those that can understand history, and know exactly the context under which it was said, plus they know that when the justification is no longer there, the "right" is not meaningful either.
That would be news to a whole lot of people. In terms of effective self-defense we're now to the point that if Peruta v County of San Diego is not struck down by a 9th Circuit en banc hearing or the Supremes, 90% of the US population will live in "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes. Did you miss the nationwide sweep of this, in the modern period starting with Florida in 1987 and ending with Wisconsin and Iowa in 2010, with the courts forcing Illinois (which is now mailing out thousands of permits), and now California and Hawaii? (Sucks to be on the East Coast, Maryland and New York I think cert denied by the Supremes, New Jersey and Massachusetts cases still pending. Add the ones where it's not an issue, that's all of the Federal Appeals circuits!)
Those of us with a detailed knowledge of the relevant history know the dependent militia clause was a sop thrown to those who feared standing armies and e.g. "select militias", which are exactly what our modern police have become. They lost because e.g. George Washington, who had very detailed knowledge of the merits of militiamen and regulars, said "no way".
Might as well mention the U.K. since some of our correspondents hail from there: as I understand it, effective self-defense, that is, using a disparity of force, was judicially nullified in the '50s, and was enshrined in law in the '60s or '70s (this is what the recent "have-a-go" stuff is about). I doubt any of you have lived in a time when you could effectively defend yourself, and therefore the concept could be quite alien to you.
Only to those with fundamental failures in English comprehension, which does not include the Supremes, who in Heller agreed 9-0 that it's an individual right.
And the Federal courts have been implacably hostile to "assault weapons"/civilian semi-auto assault rifles and the like (full auto has been covered elsewhere in this subtread; I'll just add there are about 200K legal ones out there, and two known crimes committed with them, one by a police officer). Not a single favorable opinion prior to Heller, and none that I can remember after it.
Try again.