Gun Control: The left fears armed conflict.

Most of the time, I glaze over with boredom when reading about gun control. We've heard it for years, & know what they want. But Obama & the left have recently come up with some specifics, which bring up a basic question:

What is the motivation?

I know what they say, but it is not consistent with the facts. Here is a simple argument that i have not heard the anti gun side respond to:

Why the focus on semi automatic rifles?

They are not talking about fully automatic machine guns, which are already tightly regulated, but semi-autos.. especially those that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Are semi autos used in crimes, either robbery, murder, domestic violence, etc? Not much. Very few. I've heard less than 2%. What is the weapon that is used in the most crimes & murders? The 22 pistol. Lots of them are revolvers. So if the left was honest about restricting weapons used for criminal activity, they would focus on the ones that are used for criminal activity. They would ban 22 caliber revolvers.

So this brings up the followup question:

What are semi automatic rifles, aka 'assault rifles' used for? Where do you usually see an ak-47 or an ar-15?  In wars, or armed conflict. So in wanting to ban those kinds of weapons, the progressives seem to be more concerned about future armed conflict with those who purchase them, not curtailing crime. THAT is their true motivation, not crime reduction. Why else would they ignore the statistics that show the real sources of crime, & focus on something that is used mostly in civil wars & other armed conflict? There is no other explanation. Obama & the left fear armed conflict with americans who do not submit to their ideology, & the way they deal with it is to ban the weapons & reduce the risks. It is a preemptive strike, to lessen the resistance to govt intrusions.

If my reasoning is faulty, someone show me. I don't want to believe the left is doing this to disarm americans so they can oppress us, but that seems to be the only explanation, given the facts. This sounds like old conspiracy theories i've heard, but these simple facts are hard to ignore.

Why do they want to ban a weapon that is not used in crimes, but in civil wars? Why do they ignore the weapons that are used in crimes?

The mission statement of america is individual rights & freedom. This is considered an innate right, not something graciously granted by a benevolent state power. The 2nd amendment is merely a tool to keep those rights intact. It is not a 'hunting' clause, nor a home defense provision. It is there to provide us with the means to 'alter or abolish' the govt should it fail in it's basic duty to secure our rights. Traditional americans see the govt in this way. Our constitution is not to protect the state from the people, but the people from the state. We have not had to use this provision, & hope never to have to. But it is there as a security clause.. a provision for us to keep our mission statement.