I know how cliche it is to say, but I believe firmly in the axiom "fear the government that fears your gun." Cliche doesn't mean untrue, and, as it relates to US gun control advocacy, I think it applies more than in most other cases.
Why?
Because, here, seemingly, advocates of gun control are as eager to provide greater arms to law enforcement as they are to disarm citizens.
These (armed law enforcement and disarmed civilian populations) are not independent considerations. Indeed, other countries seem to remember what Americans have long forgotten, including nations whose policies US gun control advocates seek to emulate.
US gun control advocates like to point out that, really, the Second Amendment spoke to the importance of maintaining a citizen militia, not to the unqualified right for individuals to own guns.
Believe it or not, I agree with this interpretation. In my case, though, I think we need to seriously and earnestly consider moving back in the direction the 2A intended.
The 2A was made to the backdrop of a society with anxieties related to "standing armies" and wary of unchecked law enforcement. This anxiety lingered until the Civil War, then, after World War 2, Americans basically abandoned any pretense of wanting to avoid obscenely large standing armies or law enforcement outfits. Such attributes, indeed, run widely contrary the the sentiments of the Second Amendment.
The modern-day National Guard is no viable successor to the original local civilian militia as envisioned in the Bill of Rights.
Militia participation was and should be seen even now as something more akin to jury duty than military service. It's a civic duty, one necessary for the maintenance of a free society. That was the original way we sought to keep the police state in check and I believe we should move back in that direction. Slash law enforcement by 30% and slash the US military by 70% at least.
As such, I essentially believe private citizens should be equipped with the necessary arms to uphold personal and community defense.
So, when it comes to which guns/weapons should be banned and which ones should be available to free citizens empowered with the reasonable means of defending themselves and their communities, the question is actually fairly simple:
What resources should be available to law enforcement officers to help them accomplish the same purpose?
Do you believe local police officers or tactical SWAT teams should be armed with AR-type weapons for our safety? If so, then it bears to reason that such weapons are, in fact, needed for self defense and community defense.
And, if we're not just blowing a lot of hot air and we're actually serious about undermining this country's police state, then entrusting our defense more to local civic duty again (as originally intended) is a prerequisite in transitioning from police state back to community militia service. Thus, private civilians should also have access to the necessary resources of law enforcement.
It's that simple.