The Myth Of “Lethality”: David Thompson’s Powerful Legal Defense of the ‘Dangerous’ AR-15 Rifle ~ VIDEO

At the 2024 Federalist Society Conference, David Thompson, managing partner at Cooper & Kirk and one of the nation’s foremost litigators, working directly with the Second Amendment Foundation, delivered a compelling defense of the AR-15 rifle.

With 44 million AR-15s owned across the U.S., Thompson dismantled the narrative that the rifle’s “lethality” justifies banning it, highlighting how such arguments ignore the Second Amendment’s purpose, legal precedent, and the role of firearms in preserving freedom.

Thompson’s speech not only educated but also energized pro-Second Amendment advocates, reminding them that technological advancements in firearms are a feature of liberty, not a flaw.

Lethality: The Anti-Gun Argument

In his speech, Thompson addressed the growing trend among anti-gun advocates and lower courts to label firearms like the AR-15 as “too dangerous for civilian ownership” due to their perceived “unprecedented lethality.” This argument has been weaponized to support bans on AR-15s and standard 30-round magazines, which are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

Thompson called this narrative both factually and constitutionally flawed.

“The entire history of firearms is the relentless, continual search for more lethality and more accuracy,” he explained. “These are instruments that determine your life or your death, whether you live free or as a slave.”

This focus on a firearm’s potential danger shifts the legal conversation away from its common use by law-abiding citizens, a cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.

The Supreme Court’s Clear Guidance

Thompson’s analysis rooted itself in precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling. That decision established that firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, cannot be banned.

By this test, the AR-15, which is overwhelmingly used for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting, is protected. “99.999% of AR-15s will never be used in any criminal activity,” Thompson said. The rifle’s popularity and lawful ownership place it firmly within the Constitution’s protections.

Thompson also addressed claims that AR-15 rifles are “military weapons” unsuitable for civilian use. He explained that AR-15s are semi-automatic, firing one bullet per trigger pull, unlike the fully automatic firearms used by militaries. Far from being “too dangerous,” the AR-15’s design makes it accessible, accurate, and effective for civilians defending themselves or their families.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA AR-15 Pistol 5.56 10.5" Carbine 1/7 Nitride LTWT M-Lok MOE EPT SBA3 Pistol	Palmetto State Armory	$ 899.99 $ 529.99
	PSA AR-15 Pistol 5.56 10.5" Carbine 1/7 Nitride LTWT M-Lok MOE EPT SBA3 Pistol	Palmetto State Armory	$ 899.99 $ 529.99
	PSA AR-15 Pistol 10.5" CARBN 5.56 Nitride Classic MFT Battlelink Pistol, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99 $ 499.99
	PSA AR-15 Pistol 10.5" CARBN 5.56 Nitride Classic MFT Battlelink Pistol, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99 $ 499.99

The Founders & Firearms Evolution

Thompson dispelled the myth that the Founders couldn’t have envisioned modern firearms like the AR-15. He pointed to historical records, including a 1775 demonstration before the Continental Congress of a firearm capable of firing 20 rounds without reloading. This early innovation proves that the Founders were aware of—and embraced—advances in firearms technology.

Justice Antonin Scalia echoed this sentiment in Heller, ridiculing the idea that the Second Amendment protects only firearms existing at the time of the Founding.

“The Constitution protects advancements in arms as much as it protects advancements in speech or the press,” Thompson said.

AR-15 Bans: Misguided & Dangerous

A major flaw in anti-gun arguments, Thompson noted, is the attempt to redefine the Second Amendment’s protections by focusing on criminal misuse of firearms. Courts have entertained the idea that AR15 weapons and similar firearms can be banned because criminals might use them in harmful ways. But Thompson emphasized that the Constitution was designed to protect law-abiding citizens’ rights, not to cater to hypothetical abuses.

“The features of the AR-15 that make it accurate and effective for self-defense are the same features being twisted into reasons to ban it,” Thompson argued. “The focus should always be on how these firearms empower law-abiding Americans—not on how criminals misuse them.”

A Broader Lesson: Why Lethality Matters

Thompson’s most profound point may have been this: the Second Amendment was written precisely because firearms are effective tools. Their lethality is not a constitutional bug—it’s a feature. Citizens need reliable, effective firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

“Lethality isn’t the problem,” Thompson said. “It’s the solution when it comes to defending your home or your freedom.”

He warned that using lethality as a reason to ban firearms undermines the Second Amendment’s purpose and sets a dangerous precedent that could erode other rights.

Standing Firm on the Second Amendment

David Thompson’s speech at the Federalist Society Conference was a rallying cry for Second Amendment advocates. By grounding his arguments in history, legal precedent, and common sense, Thompson exposed the flaws in the “lethality” narrative and defended the AR-15’s place as a vital tool of self-defense and freedom.

For millions of Americans, the AR-15 represents more than a firearm—it’s a symbol of their constitutional right to protect themselves and their families. Thompson’s message was clear: technological advancements and effectiveness in firearms are fully consistent with the Second Amendment, and banning AR-15s is not only unconstitutional but an affront to the principles of liberty.

We Are Winning: How the Bruen Decision Reinforced Our Second Amendment Rights ~ VIDEO

Fact Check: The Founding Fathers *DID* Know About Repeating Rifles