I see lots of rhetoric in the various posts Odin has made, but I think he's letting himself get carried away somewhat. For example, let's take his citation of the Second Amendment: "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." Emphasis mine. It seems to me that a lot of people pretty much ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment, including Odin. I think gun ownership is okay, but I also think it should be regulated, and indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment strongly suggests that the intent was to regulate gun ownership via militia membership, and in exchange, you couldn't just arbitrarily disarm people.
As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general. They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders. They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership. And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there. "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state? Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."
Regarding the AR-15, it is a rifle, a semi-automatic gun with a magazine. However, it was also used to murder children at an elementary school. Is it any surprise how many people are reacting? I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size. When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered. While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.