On "Military Arms"

So often, we hear the left, and the gun-grabbers say that since certain firearms have "no sporting purpose," then they should be restricted. Often, they will say similarly, that firearms have been designed with features for military use. Or that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the weapons we have these days, and would, therefore, be accommodating of restrictions. There are several main problems with this line of thinking.


1. Many states allow these firearms for sporting purposes.
For example, TN allowed the use of so-called "semi-automatic assault rifles" for hunting several years ago. Many other states allow the same, or substantially similar.

2. "Sporting use" is rarely defined well.
And I think this is on purpose. The gun-grabbers will mention hunting - as if the Second Amendment is all about hunting - and use this as their de facto platform. Problem is, that the guns they wish to grab are often used in sporting events.

3. The Second Amendment was created to protect the citizen's rights to own military style firearms. 
One of the reasons for the Revolutionary War was the prohibitions that the British put on military style firearms of the day, as well as confiscation of ammo and powder. From this article:

"Because Britain had done little in past years to furnish her Colonists with military arms, the militia employed a wide assortment of smoothbore muskets..."

4. Guns do not commit crimes. Criminals do.