*gasp* Remy's not a liberal.
There are a few reasons that I oppose a ban on assault rifles.
First, the principle purpose of the "Right to Bear Arms" is so that a well armed citizenry acts as a safeguard against an oppresive government. The expectation was that private citizens could organize into militas and overthrow a government that failed to ensure personal freedoms. Obviously, an AK-47 doesn't do much against tanks and F-22's, but then again- three man teams armed with RPGs and AK-47's are making handy work of our forces in Iraq.
Second, a well armed citizenry was meant to act as a deterrent against foreign incursion. The Constitution clearly states that Congress may only appropriate funds for a standing army for a period of two years. "Homeland Security" was supposed to be maintained by state run militias (which were federalized into the National Guard).
Third, the assault weapons ban has failed in keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. In fact, a person can purchase civilian versions of assault weapons and modify them back to military status at home- and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to procure (or manufacture) extended clips.
What should happen with the end of the assault weapons ban is this- any individual purchasing a firearm must be able to present certification that they have recieved and shown competency in state regulated (not federally regulated) firearms training, covering the care and safe usage of these firearms.
I do not believe that these sales should be tracked or registered- aside from the shop owners being able to have a method of verifying that each sale went to a valid certificate holder. I leave that technical detail to someone more interested in details at the moment.
Allowing our populace to arm themselves opens possibilities. First, we can put a larger burden of domestic security on individual citizens; my hope would be to go so far as to recreate the civilian militia (I would even support mandatory militia service of some variety- so long as the militia was limited to defense within the United States borders and not shipped out like the National Guard whenever it looks good).
The government's responsibility shouldn't be keeping guns out of the hands of citizens- it should be ensuring that those citizens are capable of using those firearms safely and wisely. And if your citzens also know how to react to someone who is not doing so, so much the better.
Contrary to the liberal sniping, this is not going to turn our streets into battlefields- or no more so than they already are. What you will find is that for every psycho that gets their hands on a deadly weapon and tries to rampage, you'll find several dozen other citizens similarly armed and purposed to stop the psycho. Most people who want access to these weapons are not gun crazy wackjobs who want to send a wall of lead through a kindergarten classroom. Most of them are libertarians, who do not want to rely on a government that may or may not be capable of protecting them, and instead, wish to rely on themselves to protect themselves.
To my mind, possessing and being familiar in the use of a firearm is not a privlege- it is a civic responsibility.