I understand the logic of allowing assault rifles under the second amendment, even though I disagree with it. If the second amendment is intended to prevent the rise of a tyrannical and dictatorial government, then it would probably partially defeat the purpose of it to ban AR15s and allow hunting rifles, which, although they definitely serve the purpose, are generally not primarily intended for use on human beings. Doesn't make the lack of regulation facilitated by the 2nd amendment any less ridiculous, but does mean that conceding a ban on assault weapons would provide a potential contradiction to part of the NRA's argument. (Still, if the 2nd amendment is intended to prevent the rise of a tyrant, might be slightly self defeating for the NRA to endorse Trump)