"Why do you need an AR15?"

[stanc]

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 appropriate.
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.

You seem to be a little confused. In the quoted extract from Drillboss' post, he is not addressing my opinion on the AR15.
If what you're asking about is his final comment in that quote, no, he is not wrong. The 2A does not give you the right to defend yourself.

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.

You have an odd notion of what it means to "side step" an issue. I gave a direct answer to each of your requests, and did not attempt to evade answering.

Now, in regard to your other comments:

- Yes, I was remiss in not specifying whether I was talking about organized or unorganized militias.

- I was mistaken about some militias being unarmed. The wiki article on state defense forces shows that some do not currently give firearms training, from which I erroneously inferred :p they are unarmed.

- I was also wrong about the people as a whole being the unorganized militia. According to the Militia Act of 1903, the unorganized militia is composed of able-bodied, adult males aged 18-45 who are not members of organized militias. So that means the majority of the adult population (i.e., men over the age of 45, disabled men of any age, and women of any age) are not -- contrary to what has been stated in this thread -- in either the organized or unorganized militias.

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.

I wouldn't exactly call three-fourths of a century ago "recent" history, but the examples prove my point: The government provided (or at least offered to provide) weapons.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, do you know what were the mentioned "obsolete" weapons?