The second amendment is not about hunting/target shooting. It is a means to resist tyranny and personal defense.

Your grandmother's fear is irrational. She is fearing the potential of a weapon. It is an emotional argument which is based on ignorance since less than 2% of all gun crimes use so called "assault rifles".

Standard capacity magazines are desirable traits in a firearm not only for combat use but defensive use. A recent example are shop owners that defended their shops during the Ferguson riots.

Does she know that those rifles she doesn't want anyone to own are used in less than 3% of firearm-related homicides, while handguns are involved in over 80% of firearm-related homicides? What is her logic for banning the one rarely used category, and not the frequently-used firearm category?

I am pretty sure she would be just as interested in the restriction of certain handguns for the same reasons. I did not mean to imply that she only cared about assault rifles. As for the rest of your statement I think my reply just above this one covers most of what you brought up.

Uh huh. You failed to mention that she wants to ban other firearms besides the "30rd AR15". Again, I ask you, what is her logical argument (assumptions, premises, conclusion) and the data that support her assumptions? Just tell us. If you don't know, ask her. Maybe you could make a list of all the guns that she would allow, or disallow, whichever is shortest. I'm always curious to see the arguments, logic (or lack thereof) and the data upon which people base their conclusions and statements about firearm issues. Since you claim your grandmother owns a firearm but wants numerous firearms banned, please enlighten us so we can consider the validity of her reasoning. There is some logic to her assertions, correct? Or is it a case of "I just feel that..."?

I would say it is not the potential so much as it is the capabilities.
The fear is not irrational, it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real. If we managed to solve our gang problem then we would see the mass shootings become a much higher percentage of gun murders in america. To an individual who lost someone from a mass shooting this is a real issue and it is personal. Think of one of the recent mass shootings involving AR-15 rifles. Now imagine that the perpetrator was only able to get his hands on a lower rate of fire rifle such as a bolt action or lever action. It is fairly safe to reason that the body count would be significantly lower because of the limitations of said guns. Real lives that were lost that might have been saved were high capacity/high rate of firearms made illegal. To a person who lost a child it is emotional but not irrational. I am not saying I agree with them but I can put myself in their shoes and see why they are saying what they are saying.

I think my grandma would also say the same thing about high capacity semi auto pistols which are involved in a lot more than 2% of gun murders. The rifles just seem to get more attention than pistols but that is probably because the crazy mass shooting people that get all the attention end up choosing those types.

I gave her reasons as being high rates of fire and large ammo capacity, this can obviously apply to rifles or pistols. I am not going to sit down to show her a thousand different guns to get such a list.
My point in mentioning her was simply to illustrate that there are people in the middle ground of the debate. , I don't imagine you would agree with all of her reasoning but then a lot of other people wouldn't agree with our reasonings either.

This position I present in contrast to someone who claims that a gun should be banned because of stupid reasons like being black or having a pistol grip, traits which do not  affect the capabilities of the firearm.

Dang... you could complete Phase 1 of the Rail Project using just the walls o' text from this thread.

In my opinion, without her being an active participant in the conversation, demanding explanations/clarifications of (and providing justifications for) EEF's Grandma's beliefs is an exercise in futility.

Again, just my opinion... carry on!

Guilty as charged. Again. 

Carrying on, as instructed: a coincidental article posted today:

http://bearingarms.com/came-bolt-actions/

And Then They Came For The Bolt-Actions

Excerpt:

You can find them in every gun store in even the most restrictive states in the nation, and with good reason; bolt-action rifles are among the most ubiquitous rifles in the United States, and have been in deer camps and military arsenals in the United States since the Palmer carbine was used in the U.S. Civil War.

Now two separate gun control groups are attempting to restrict access to them.
...
Apparently, they’re now going to go after bolt-action rifles used for hunting, calling them “sniper rifles,” comparing their owners to “insurrectionists” and”terrorists” as they attempt to push universal background checks as a de facto gun registry.

I would say it is not the potential so much as it is the capabilities.
The fear is not irrational, it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real. If we managed to solve our gang problem then we would see the mass shootings become a much higher percentage of gun murders in america. To an individual who lost someone from a mass shooting this is a real issue and it is personal. Think of one of the recent mass shootings involving AR-15 rifles. Now imagine that the perpetrator was only able to get his hands on a lower rate of fire rifle such as a bolt action or lever action. It is fairly safe to reason that the body count would be significantly lower because of the limitations of said guns. Real lives that were lost that might have been saved were high capacity/high rate of firearms made illegal. To a person who lost a child it is emotional but not irrational. I am not saying I agree with them but I can put myself in their shoes and see why they are saying what they are saying.

I think my grandma would also say the same thing about high capacity semi auto pistols which are involved in a lot more than 2% of gun murders. The rifles just seem to get more attention than pistols but that is probably because the crazy mass shooting people that get all the attention end up choosing those types.

I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are saying?

The fear is not irrational 
That means it is rational, based on some reasonable supporting information or knowledge. 

it is from actual instances such as mass shootings. Now statistically speaking you are correct they do not represent a significant percentage of gun murders in America but they are real.
This is the same thing as being paranoid your neighbor is a serial killer.  He's a nice, quiet guy, keeps to himself, doesn't seem to socialize or have many visitors ... you know, all those things people tend to notice about serial killers after they get caught. 
To borrow your words, "but they {serial killers] are real."   
Is it rational to believe your neighbors are serial killers even though the chances/instances of this happening is a sliver of a fraction of the entire population?
If you answer "No," then you must also admit it's just as irrational to fear a firearm because a super-small percentage of people who commit gun crimes decided to use an AR or AK.
The term "PHOBIA" exists for a reason.  They are IRRATIONAL fears based not on reasoning, but on emotion and unrealistic beliefs.

The belief that if they had banned firearms like the at-15 fewer people would have died in many of these mass shootings is not irrational because it can be based on articulateable facts. The same argument is made for denying people with mental illness having firearms.
Now for someone who is just against guns because we have so many gun murders it is irrational to target mass shootings because statistically it is a small percent. But for someone who lost a loved one it is rational to want to focus on such instances. For them if some new regulation saved a few dozen lives around the country then it was worth it in their eyes. You and I may not agree with that level of restriction but that doesn't mean it is irrational. They are looking for something they can do to prevent more loss of life and some of them base this off of actual things that would make a difference. The argument is rational but it is a freedom/right/privilege that we are not willing to give up in trade. We would have a lot fewer alcohol related deaths if the world gave up booze (a rational argument) but too many simply aren't willing to give up their love for alcohol.

A lot of people think we do not currently need protection from the government so they think arguments of firearms for protection from the government are irrational. We have two sides both pointing at each other claiming the other to be irrational, we shouldn't necessarily alienate people in the middle.

Thanks for posting the link, PP.

I read the article and, in my opinion, the title of the article is kind of misleading.

The first portion refers to the National Victims Action Council's call to restrict (ban) the $27,500.00, technologically-advanced TrackingPoint PGF.

The second portion refers to CeaseFire PA's call for increased restrictions on ALL long guns, following the shooting of two state troopers by an individual using a .308 rifle (the article does not specifically identify a bolt-action).

Granted, the article does highlight continued efforts to further restrict firearm ownership.

Okay, show me one fact-based study or demonstration that supports what you wrote.

Please, articulate the facts that support your conjecture about "at-15" bans saving lives.

I don't need a study to prove that an at-15 with a 100rd mag is much more effective at shooting multiple targets quickly than a 5 round bolt action rifle. If someone went on a killing spree and all things were equal except for the firearm, the person with high capacity and high rate of fire would be able to kill or wound more people. We can say that it is not worth the restriction of our rights but it is a rational conclusion.

I don't need a study to prove that an at-15 with a 100rd mag is much more effective at shooting multiple targets quickly than a 5 round bolt action rifle. If someone went on a killing spree and all things were equal except for the firearm, the person with high capacity and high rate of fire would be able to kill or wound more people. We can say that it is not worth the restriction of our rights but it is a rational conclusion.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”

Said the CDC back in 2003, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws":

   Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,

   Restrictions on firearm acquisition,

   Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,

   Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and

   Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.