What is it with the U.S.A and there rights with firearms?

Very few Americans have automatic firearms. The Ak-47's that we can purchase are semi automatic. We do not have M4's unless they have been de-activated to semi-auto only. Automatic weapons are highly regulated, cost 10's of thousands of dollars. Require extensive background checks and expensive annual licensing.
You are correct. You do not understand. We have the right to bear arms as a protection against a tyrannical government. What makes an AR-15 different from other .223 semi automatic rifles? Looks. That is all. How many fully automatic weapons have been used in any crime in the USA in the last 80 years? Not many. Bank robbery in Los Angeles is the last I know of. Those guns were obtained illegally.
Why should we not have access to semi automatic rifles? Canadians can and do own semi auto rifles. True they are limited to five rounds. In fact originally the Ruger Mini 14 was exempted.

Americans do not have access to automatic weapons, our access, to those types of weapons is very limited both regulation wise and in an economic respect. To get a class 3 license, which is needed to get the weapons such as the M4 carbine, AK-47, M-16 or any kind of assault rifle a person needs to under go a comprehensive background check, fingerprinting, register with the ATF, and after all that, including but not limited to hundreds of dollars in government fees, has to spend 10,000's of dollars to buy the weapon itself that has to be made prior to 1986. As for crimes with assault rifles there has only been one and that was conducted by a Sheriff's Deputy.

The weapons you're actually inquiring about are semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These are not automatic rifles nor are they assault rifles. They're just like your average everyday hunting rifle with tactical looking furnishings, that does nothing to contribute to the way the gun is fired. Americans access to automatic firearms is almost non-existent, it is practically impossible for an American to get an automatic firearm. http://www.targetworld.net/Steps%20for%20buying%20NFA%20(Class%20III%20Weaponry)%2011-3-07.pdf

My opinion is that Obama is tightening the laws for LEGAL gun owners. What about the people that own the guns illegally? Tightening the laws so legal gun owners can no longer access them just opens a persons home up for more gun violence by the bad guys (the ones who don't play by Obama rules and still obtain guns illegally)gives them more power over the man who chooses to follow the law and own his guns legally - unable to protect him family if put in a dangerous situation. I do not feel taking about more and more of our rights is the answer. If he wants to do something good for our country he would hold stiffer penalties for those who do own guns illegally. The bad guys who buy them from the black markets. I also believe americans should be required to have gun safety training to all who are living in the home with a person who owns a gun. I have my rights to protect myself and no one should take that away from me. I am an american who does Not own a gun but that doesn't change the fact that I should have a right to choose.

It's again simply my opinion but I believe in the right to choose. You didn't seem to speak of the people who were saved by their gun when they had them home broken into by 4 masked men. There are Both sides to owning a gun the good and the bad.

First let me explain the answer from the simple standpoint of it's Actual Science. Then let me explain how things got screwed up. Then, if you should live so long, you'll understand "tomorrow".

The United States is the ONLY 'country' in the entire history of the earth that took the approach of putting into writing the completely upside down topsy-turvy idea that the Individuals who are actually outdoors, scattered everywhere through-out the furthest corners of the community, actually collecting the water, gathering the food, cutting the timber, building the roads, driving the horses, sailing the ships, and so on are the most likely eyes and ears to encounter enemy troops FIRST - Leadership would likely know the 'rumors' that England or France or Spain or Germany or Japan or whoever "had plans" for something, but exactly where and when said "something" would actually appear would be first known only by whoever happened to be around - So if you and your work crew happen to notice them coming, and all you got is a basket full of potatoes, how far "inland" can the Japanese fly over Hawaii in order to bomb Pearl Harbor without suffering any losses BEFORE anyone knows about it? The Science, the simple Logistics, of having every single man, woman and child, simply go about their daily business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, EVERYWHERE throughout every corner of the country, BEARING Arms, is simple Logic - if it wasn't simply logical that you do need as many armed folks as possible in as many places as possible in order to maintain the security of your state, well, um... you'd have a really hard time selling folks on the logic behind the need to hire more and more "cops" to be in more and more places doing more and more things constantly. The topsy-turvy part of OUR design was simply the economic factor - by making EVERYONE HERE a duly authorized Armed Security Guard, there's nobody to hafta pay - no special elite corp, which is the historical standard method of operations everywhere, that civilians are butchers, bakers, and candel-stick makers but Security is a dedicated field that's occupied solely by dedicated personnel. So there's the Science - Cheap Security, the vested interest of the public's safety directly laid in the hands of the public who's gonna be front line first eyes, first contact.

Now where it went wrong. The little deviant Hamilton who come up with the great Sales Campaign regarding the Topsy-Turvy idea that the first-eyes first-contact plain folk are the best means of security got in a little tussle with a 'bunch of drunks" over a matter of some Taxes that Hamilton was of the opinion they ought to have paid. They, of course, believed differently. Cut to the chase, Hamilton eventually wound up dead after he managed to prove to enough of the ?wrong? eyes that his great sales pitch was allot of hot air. His death kinda sorta panicked his associates, so they began DISCOURAGING first-eyes first-contact plain folk from Acting on anything. They EDUCATED first-eyes first-contact plain folk OUT OF USING their arms. And, of course, if you can't use something, what's the point of having it? Here we are now, the result of EDUCATION completely ignorant of the point BUT, and here's the real poison, Still Educated that we, alone, are Special People in the world as "the only ones" with our peculiar topsy-turvy plain-folks rule "Constitution". It would, indeed, have been much better had the Marxists simply replaced Hamilton's Constitution after their successful Overthrow of 1865. But they didn't - Instead, they instituted a Dichotomy that teaches "of course you have the right" to this, that and the other, "it's just illegal" to exercise it.

Now - had they not so embarked on such Schizophrenia, folks would be driving to and from the movies and shopping and school in vehicles that could withstand head-on collisions at 100 miles an hour running on water for fuel - Imagine, for a moment, a market of 2 Hundred MILLION pocket books who were Fully Educated to the fact that National Security was THEIR Job, NOT a sub-sector of a tiny fraction of some of their kids - but entirely and wholly in their own literal hands - The same teachers that tell k-through-12 180 days a year "Not ever under any circumstance" instead saying "You Do It, You Stand By It" - Instead of "look to your right, look to your left, one of you is a" criminal, how about "look to your right, look to your left, say Hello and pass the canteen".

Why? Because Americans are irrational and can't think for them self. They just believe what someone else tells them. Neither side of the gun debate is capable of having a logical or rational discussion.

The truth is, guns don't cause crime, and guns don't stop crime. And there's a lot of evidence to support that. But neither side wants to listen.

You have to understand that there is an inherent anti-government strain of thought in America. After all, we were formed by an anti-colonial rebellion.

Having said that, the 2nd Amendment is about militia,as should be apparent to anybody who can read English.

As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall said 200 years ago, "the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."

In other words, the ENTIRE MEANING OF "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" MUST be taken into consideration. The more enthusiastic gun-rights supporters want to ignore the first four words, which is patently absurd.

Second, the 1st Amendment has restrictions: why should the 2nd be different?

NO right is absolute, and if the Constitution's framers had foreseen 30-round magazines and rapid-fire guns, they would have written the 2nd Amendment quite differently. In those days, if you shot somebody, it might take you a minute to reload. In the meantime, half the town could club you to the ground.