2nd ammendment argument.

The question was asked,

Why do (slur removed) feel that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t include so called assault rifles?

A follow-on argument was made:

If these so called assault rifles are for military use, which national militaries use them?

I don't understand the post, so I'm not really able to answer.

1) I don't see an argument in the two statements.  The closest I can come is to assume (and that always gets one into trouble) that one person considers the right to keep and bear arms to include assault rifles and another person considers that assault rifles are not included in this particular right.  But nowhere is there a statement to that effect, moving forward on that assumption might or might not get us anywhere.

2) I don't see John's question in the post.  Again, the reader is left to make assumption about what's being asked ... something that can lead to non-productive (or at least interesting) answers and ensuing discussion.

It's sort of like the young child who asks, "Mommy, where did I come from?"  Thinking that the child was old enough for the whole story, the mother went into great detail about how Mommy and Daddy created the child.  Mommy then asked, "Did that answer your question?" to which the child responded, "Not really.  Today at school Tommy said he came from Alberta and I just wondered where I came from."

Meaningful answers and discussions need precisely defined terms and clear statements.

At best, I see implied opinions and no argument ... therefore, by definition, no fallacy.

This is what I gathered from the OP and its replies:

Person 1: "I don't know why (Republicans) feel that the right to bear arms includes assault rifles in our society? Assault rifles are for military use."

Person 2: "Why do (Democrats) feel that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t include so called assault rifles? Also, if these so called assault rifles are for military use, which national militaries use them?"

They're talking past each other. Person 1 doesn't clearly define what an "assault rifle" is, and Person 2 does not answer Person 1's question - or even try. 

I think that, if they slowed down and clarified their comments, they'd have a productive conversation...and it wouldn't end up in a post on a forum about logical fallacies.

(Speaking of fallacies - there aren't really any here, since no arguments were presented. At a push you could charge Person 1 with ambiguity fallacy, Person 2 with ignoratio elenchi and both of them with making sweeping generalisations about other parties, but you'd need to see more of an argument to fully establish that.)

The implicit argument appears to be,

Premise1: The stipulation that americans have the right to bear arms does not exclude any particular arms (i.e. all arms are included)

Premise 2: Assault rifles are included in the set 'all arms'

Conclusion: Americans have the right to bear assault rifles