In the wake of a mass shooting tragedy, the media reliably records “man on the street” interviews with individuals that “can’t understand why anyone would need” a “assault weapon” for home defense, hunting, etc. In a dumbed-down nation, the uninformed are easy to find, and the informed easy to edit out of a broadcast or article.
What no news organization will do—not CNN, nor NPR, the Washington Post nor the New York Times—is actually pull in an expert on the Second Amendment and allow them to speak to the reason and rationale behind the Second Amendment without being interrupted or shouted down.
If they did, they’d have to face the uncomfortable fact that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, nor personal defense, but was to codify a pre-existing natural right to be armed with weapons of contemporary military utility to defend against enemies to liberty both foreign and domestic. One could make a very arguable case they meant any man-portable arms, up to including light machine guns and grenade launchers (they themselves own cannons), but that is mere conjecture. They wanted Americans armed as a threat to nations considering invasion, and a powerful deterrent to tyranny imposed by a centralized federal government.
Put bluntly, purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to make sure that citizens had militarily-useful arms to fight foreign invaders and to depose would-be domestic tyrants.
It is without question that since the Founding Fathers were armed with the most advanced military small arms of their day, that they meant to protect that same right for future citizens as well. AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles are the exact kind of contemporary military-grade firearms the Founders meant to protect.
I challenge any and all news media to accurately, contextually present this truth to the “national discussion.”
I make this challenge, knowing none will answer it.