Dear Senator Taylor,
The Second Amendment specifically refers to military weapons - NOT hunting rifles and shotguns.
The whole intent of the Second Amendment is that the people - the militia, in particular, which was in the days of the Founders, defined as able-bodied males of the ages normally enlisted in armies, should have the proper tools to defend their communities from invasion or other dangers. The proper tools of the times were those weapons in common use by the British Army.
Obviously, the Founders could not conceive of modern weapons, but the intent is clear - the right of the people to keep and bear arms (common to the armies of the day), shall not be infringed.
Our Revolution was armed by guns owned by private citizens, and captured from the British. Some artillery was supplied by private citizens, as were the first US naval ships. We would all be speaking the Queen's English at tea today if it were not for those militia weapons held by private citizens.
Today, this does not mean shotguns and hunting rifles. It means military main battle rifles such as the M1 Garand and .50 caliber sniper rifles, select-fire weapons such as the M16 and M4, pistols, trench shotguns, mortars, and man-portable machine guns.
Here in Wisconsin, the people already own thousands of these weapons, including some full-auto and select-fire guns. These are not going away even if an "assault weapons" ban is enacted here.
Look at the real statistics for crimes. "Assault weapons" account for a very small number of crimes. Unfortunately, most of this miniscule number is high-profile multiple shootings, usually committed in so-called "gun free" areas.
The Second Amendment cannot be respected by banning the very weapons it is meant to protect.