The intent of the 2nd was NEVER about hunting, it is the right of the citizens to resit tyranny.
Yes, the Founders could not have conceived that modern day weapons could be so advanced....but then again, the Founders would not have expected drugs, The Southern Poverty Law Center, The KU KLUX KLAN, or a nation stretching sea to sea.
The wonder of how our nation works does amaze me, but I stand with Conservative principals. I believe in my right to own a firearm, or a knife, or a club to defend myself by my choice. If I think an ARMALITE RIFLE, model 15, is cool to own, and if I want one, I will buy one. I am not asking a subsidy from the government to have it, buy it, maintain it, or shoot it.
If I think it is scary looking, and I don't want one, guess what? I won't buy one. But unlike liberals and Democrats, I will not try and dictate what others can do.
The debate is not about a semi-auto rifle that could be likened to being the "Corvette" of the gun world....after all, who really needs a Corvette? Rather, the debate is about our ability to defend ourselves, and not let or allow a tyrannical government to subjugate us completely.
By the way, I own a Mini-14, and a Mini-30, both look like 3/4 scale Garand Rifles, and function exactly the same way. They also have a magazine capacity of 30 rounds, fire just as fast, but do not have the "look" of the AR platform. They look like WWII weapons, and are just as deadly. My gold clubs are deadly too. My truck, my semi-tractor, my Leatherman Tool, and just about any object I can find, like an axe, can be an assault weapon.
Anytime you buy into the debate saying a weapon should be illegal because it has no practical purpose for hunting, you are signing away your liberty. I was born 16 years after the end of the Holocaust. It could happen again.