There really is no need for civilians to have military-grade guns.
The II Amendment is one of the Bill of RIGHTS not the bill of needs. The purpose of right to keep and bear arms is to prevent our government from taking away an individuals right to protect themselves. While an AR-15 is an inappropriate weapon in this situation once our government bans the ownership of an AR-15 what is to stop it from taking other types of guns? Nothing! If the victim in this situation had had a gun he would not have been assaulted. If he has an AR-15 at home his home would be safe.
Colt said it will suspend making AR-15's but eventually will start making them again.
"The fact of the matter is that over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity," Colt Defense LLC president and CEO Dennis Veilleux said in a statement Thursday. "Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future."
The law of supply and demand in action is why Colt has temporarily stopped making the AR-15.
Kind sir, as you may recall from high school civics class, the 2A only addresses militias. It was only when Scalia the Conservative "Originalist" SCOTUS member legislated from the bench did "militias" become individuals like the lying conniving sociopath that Scalia was.
Therefore, from an true Originalist perspective, individuals do not have the right to own guns, but their militia does.
I hope this clarification helps.
Read the book Origins of the Bill of Rights, chapter 6, by Leonard W. Levy (Yale University Press copyright 1999). In that chapter Professor Levy explains how the II Amendment is an individual right. The book was written before Justice Scalia was on the Supreme Court and it clarifies the real originalist meaning of the II Amendment.
_________________________ The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary