Statistics show us that banning firearms has no effect, and in most cases a reverse effect on crime, homiacides, mass shootings and many more. Banning "assault" rifles, which is an incorrect term to begin with, will have no effect on the number of "mass" shootings. The majority of mass shootings are carried out with semi-automatic pistols to begin with, so banning "assault" rifles will not hinder these from happening. In addition to the rights protected by the constitution, the "assault" rifles this ban talks about, such as the AR-15, are made to be a home defense weapon. Anyone who argues that a shotgun would me more effective has never shot one, nor as seen that the "spread" is not nearly as big as you thing it to be. The 223 round, which the civilian designed AR-15 uses, uses a 22 caliber bullet, the round is designed to not go through most walls. Which means you won't injure other people in the process of trying to thwart off an armed home intruder. I could go on about the shotgun not being a good choice, but anyone who argues it is and that you don't need an AR-15 because a shotgun is better, contradicts them selves. If the shotgun is a more effective weapon at defense than the AR-15, then logic would dictate the shotgun is a deadlier weapon than the AR-15. Therefore wouldn't it be wiser to try to ban shotguns than AR-15's? The second amendment, which was so important at the time is was chosen to be the 2nd of all the amendments, guarantees the citizens to form a well organized militia. Owning an AR-15 is justified based of this amendment alone.