"Why do you need an AR15?"

[Drillboss]

The only need addressed in the 2A is access to weapons for arming the militia. However, that's been rendered somewhat moot, because those state militias that still exist, either are unarmed, or issue required weapons. There is no longer a need for individuals to provide their own weapons; and in fact, modern military forces typically do not permit the use of privately-owned weapons.
If called upon by the State to do battle against its enemies, it is extremely unlikely you will be allowed to bring your own "militia-style, military style" arm.

The State will issue you what weapon(s) it deems approate.
The point is, official state militias are also modern military forces. Their rules definitely do apply to civilians who join those militias.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Drillboss was inferring what he thought your opinion was on the AR-15. Was he wrong? The original question was "Why do you need an AR-15?" The most common answer seems to be "because the Constitution (2nd amendment) gives me the right to defend myself".
I think Stan is correct in saying the 2A doesn't give you that right.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me stan but you are doing the side step again. First you state: However, that's been rendered somewhat moot, because those state militias that still exist, either are unarmed, or issue required weapons.( You never distinguished the difference between the organized and unorganized militias.) All organized militias are armed today, they are the national guard. Unorganized militia are the people as a whole, "your words not just mine". I would gather there are many armed citizens in every state, so why are they unarmed as you stated in your previous remark?
Then you stateI never disputed that the people as a whole constitute the unorganized militia.)
You didn't believe many state militias still existed, then you state the people as a whole constitute the militia.
Organized and unorganized militias are still the militia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is why the militia can and has used their personal arms in recent history.

Alaska, as you may be aware, was actually invaded by the Japanese during World War II. U.S. soldiers fought bitterly in the frozen hell of the Aleutians in 1942 and 1943. The Alaska National Guard had already been deployed outside of Alaska at the start of World War II, and understandably, the territorial governor was concerned about the prospect that Japanese troops might land on the Alaska mainland. Consequently, a bit more than 6000 Alaskans, mostly Eskimos and Indians, and some of them women, were called into service as the Alaska Territorial Guard—the unorganized militia. They were unpaid volunteers, armed with obsolete U.S. Army weapons.

Oregon and Maryland were more in the tradition of the Revolutionary militias. In both cases, the unorganized militias were armed with their own weapons, but like the Alaska Territorial Guard, they were unpaid volunteers. Oregon’s Governor Sprague called the unorganized militia into service the day after Pearl Harbor, and asked the federal government for rifles. The obsolete weapons offered—with no ammunition—soon caused the governor to have the militia arm themselves.

What was the Oregon militia’s objective? As the Oregon State Archives explains, officials expected that in the event of a Japanese invasion of the coast, the militia would “rush to control all roads leading to the coast, would attack and harass the invaders, delaying the invading activity until such time as fully equipped regular army forces could reach the point and take over." They would then engage in guerilla warfare tactics against “parachute and air-borne troops.” The objective was to delay and harass Japanese troops until U.S. Army units could be brought into position. Governor Sprague explained the value of these units: “One thing made clear in this war is the value of guerrilla fighting; and our local fighters, familiar with the terrain, can be of great value in repelling the enemy.”

While many of these groups were formally members of something called the Oregon State Guard (a militia, not part of the Oregon National Guard), there were a number of independent militia groups as well, such as the Tillamook Guerillas, and southeast Portland’s Bushwhackers. Oregon officials made some effort to bring these independent companies under some level of state supervision.

At the end of 1942, there were more than 8000 members of these various militias.

Montana, I'll agree with everything you've said here and I don't intend to try to speak for Stan. I think I remember a movie called "Red Dawn" where an indigent group of Americans sucessfully fought back an invasion by Russia, and more power to them.

If someone ever breaks into my home carrying an AR-15, I hope that I have equivalent or better firepower to confront them.

The point remains that the current interpretation of the second amendment depends on the laws passed by Congress, then whether the President signs or vetoes that legislation, then whether Congress can override that veto, and then finally how the Supreme Court interprets and rules on that law. Anything that has happened in the past may be considered in the decision by the Supreme Court, but it doesn't necessarily affect the outcome. Again, it all depends on the makeup of the court.