Gun laws, Marines differenting stances on the case

Boston and DiOrio have very different stance on gun laws. The first question was what their thoughts were on their founding fathers when they wrote we have the right to bear arms, which is the second admendment. Boston said that people should always be allowed to own a gun just incase if we need to protect ourselfs. DiOrio said that the principle of why we have guns today is different then the founding fathers would know and that its solely for the purpose of the militia. I believe they make valid points but i am in favor of being able to keep a gun. The second question asked was what if a new bill passed to banned assault weapons. Boston said that it is not okay to take away guns because actions of a few people. DiOrio said that it would harm gun owners and supports the idea. I agree with DiOrio assault guns should not be allowed because they basically only have one use, to kill lots of people.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/marines-gun-control-ireport/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

 http://www.hollandbarstool.com/documents/image/Logos/Military/Marines-in-use.jpg