The Second Amendment to 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.” This is a very powerful sentence, and when clearly understood, makes further debate on the issue of guns, as owned by the American people, irrelevant, and debate on the issue, moot.
 
When we look at this Amendment, we must consider the word “militia” and understand its meaning, as was common at the time the Constitution was written. The framers of the Constitution understood the word “militia” to be an armed citizenry. It was not a standing army, nor what we today know of as the National Guard, that each of the states have. In fact, the framers of the Constitution would have thought of the National Guard as a standing army. Rather, a militia is an armed citizenry, which can be called on, to defend the United States. We have plenty of evidence that George Washington was not real happy with militias, as they generally were not as prone to follow orders as the standing army. This is one of the reasons that “well regulated” is written in the Second Amendment.  That and they did not want ass hats running around acting on their own, or in a mannor that was counterproductive. 
 
When we understand that a militia is not a standing army, nor a paid organization, we understand that any attempt to state that a national guard or law enforcement entity is what the Second Amendment refers to, is entirely flawed, and in abject error.
 
At the time of the American Revolution, the Continental Army grew out of militias, in the sense that since there was no army, citizens who arrived to support the revolution, very often brought their own firearms. Very often they were not even issued a uniform, as resources were very limited. Of course there were firearms issued, and some were supplied by folks like the French, but again, very often soldiers of the Revolution fought with what they brought. The question then arises, what would have happened in those cases, if the individual brought an inferior or substandard firearm to fight against the British? Those who want to ban AR 15 or like type firearms are in effect saying that the founders of our country were attempting to say that those citizens who showed up to fight the British, should have brought slingshots, or cross bows, but not be in possession of suitable firearms, comparable to those held by the Continental Army.  
 
Based on the above, an armed citizenry is the basis of the military. Not the other way around. It is fascinating that when we read the second Amendment, we see that the right to keep and bear arms is granted to the people, and not to the army, or a law enforcement entity. Rather, the right is granted to the people. Based on this, it is easy to construe that “the people” have more rights than even the police, or the military, when it comes to owning or bearing arms. Not the other way around; which is what most Americans have come to believe.
 
In America today, most people believe that it is the government and those with the firearms that permit us as citizens to keep and bear arms. This is entirely backwards and great evidence that if a government is methodical, over the course of time, it can change commonly held notions, and even the application of law.  
 
In understanding the above, we must then contend that certainly the framers of the Constitution had no intention to limit the type of firearms that the American people could possess, or to allow the standing army to possess one type of firearm, and yet limit the type that a member of a militia could possess. We can thus deduce that based on the way that the Second Amendment is written, the framers of the Constitution intended for the American people/armed citizenry to keep and bear the same type of firearms as those used by the standing army that would be sufficient to carry out the task of defending the United States of America. They would have found the attempt to ban AR 15 firearms very upsetting, and counter to their ideas and beliefs. This is in consideration of the fact that at present, the American people do not keep and bear the same firearms as does the military, or law enforcement. For example, although an AR 15 looks similar to an M 16, these firearms are vastly different in performance. Of course this has been stated before, many times.
 
I hope that someone will convey the point that based on the way the Second Amendment is written, the founders of our country, intended for citizens to own the same firearms as those professional members of the military. Therefore, doesn’t it stand to reason that anyone who even suggests banning an AR 15 rifle is proposing an act that is unconstitutional?   

It is obvious by your own writing you understand this clearly an attempt to mock. In reality you are expressing guilt and acknowledging your participation.