at a time when the citizens were using muzzle loaders... I do not think our fore fathers would agree with the current law to include the assault rifles
I would disagree.
The 2nd amendment is in place not to protect anyone's right to hunt, or have fun, or have something cool, or for personal property protection against their neighbors, or to protect against assault or robbery.
It's there as a means for the populace of individuals to protect themselves from government when that populace deems it necessary.
Throughout human history all governments have gone down the path of fascism, tyranny, oligarchy, warped socialism/communism, something bad.
Basically a few at the top start controlling everything, and in their desire to keep, expand, enjoy, justify, and/or maintain power and control over everything it increasingly infringes upon (via force or its ultimate threat) the rights of the "powerless" (the ones that don't control or have access to a military, or police, or knights, or security detail, whatever...interesting tidbit on my personal family geneaology, my ancestors were physically press ganged into British military service, rounded up at gunpoint and forced onto ships to go fight against the dirty terrorist colonists. Once in the colonies, they ran away to settle the south and midwest then turned around and fought against the British. No military training whatsoever. they did use guns, though).
That's the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you that no one "needs" an "assault" rifle, or fully automatic rifle, if all armies on earth, all police forces on earth, used muskets.
As long as the people in "government" have access to and uses these weapons, so should all other people/citizens.
Otherwise, you are simply creating the same old problem. Stratification of power leading to creating a power class and less class mobility.
There is never going to be a moment where government is going to be all "oh, hey, we're going to start just saying no to your rights tomorrow. We'll start with passing a revised patriot act that forces cameras into your home to watch for terrorists, collects all your emails and goes through them (for terrorists!), start jailing you for watching subversive material on the internet (you might become a terrorist!), start a new draft and force people into service (against terrorists!), make it unlawful for people to gather in groups greater than 2 without a government chaperone (no terrorist cells!), and the tax rate is going up to 75% on everyone to pay for it and all those terrorist kid orphanages, it's for the kids! (and if you don't pay you're a terrorist!).
We're just going to use 'national security' reasons and 'reconciliation' or 'executive order' means to circumvent the constitution and stuff.
But yeah, we're totally becoming one of 'those' governments and thought we should tell you. We know it, we like it, we're going to do it.
So, you know how we restricted all your weapons? Yeah, okay, you're going to need those now, because we're thinking about sending in our new and never seen before militarized police swat teams to rendition you to some cell.
We're going to remove the restrictions and you can now buy the weapons you need to fight against us, m'kay?"
Based on human history, it's not a matter of "if" government becomes corrupt to the point of oppressing, abridging, or occluding peoples freedoms/rights, but "when." And it's not really "when," so much as "there's always some degree and it grows at different rates, but how much is the populace willing to put up with before forcibly protecting their own rights."
"Assault" rifles may not be needed, now, but people aren't going to really get an absolute heads up for "when" they're needed, and then magically be granted access to the necessary weapons.
Unless you are of the opinion that man and government have magically evolved past the need for violence, at least between government and its citizens? Because people have a voice the government listens and responds to?
Like when all those people demonstrated against the Iraq war and the government listened?
Or all those people demonstrated and voiced against Obamacare and the government listened?
I see it as common sense
Based on the "common sense" you are using then no one "needs" a pantry, no one "needs" a refrigerator, no one "needs" the technology necessary for canning or preserving foods.
I mean there's a gas station, convenience, grocery store, and/or restaurant every few blocks in any city selling fresh food.
Who needs a kitchen.
Those people in Texas and Florida and Lousiana, well, they shouldn't have been allowed to keep any food in the house. That's the same as hoarding and keeping it away from those starving children all over the world. People in the U.S. throw away a large percentage of their hoarded stored in the refrigerator food every year.
Millions die from hunger and starvation.
Get rid of those weapons of mass destruction called refrigerators keeping food from dying children!
There should be laws forcing people to buy only the food they need to eat, when they need to eat it, based on short term or immediate historical use.
They should be completely unprepared for a giant storm (or e.coli outbreak/recall) to come in and trap them without access to a grocery store all of a sudden.
We've grown as a people, past the need to fear the weather, we are civilized, we water and mow our lawns and the forest service clears brush!
And no one "needs" hurricanes! Our forefathers didn't have access to 1000 year storms! The government should outlaw all storm systems above a certain level. If they'd do that, then there'd be no alternative method for that storm system to come in and do what it does!
