Interesting. How did you see the text of my quote? It appears blank to me. Is it something wrong on my end?
Let’s see if fixing the quote tag somehow makes it appear.
Can you give an example in which I ignored a point that was made and just talked over it?
Can you give an example of a disingenuous argument I’ve made here?
You paint me with this brush, but there’s all this text here, all these things I’ve said - why not make an actual case instead of just insult me?
Not at all. I haven’t fully flushed out why I believe certain arguments to be flawed, because I have in previous threads. We’ve had pages-long threads that focus on these issues specifically, and I didn’t want to refight them at length, so I only stated what I believed to be the most reasonable conclusion from them.
I’ll find those threads later and post links.
Not at all. Above all, I form my opinions through reason. I was not pro-gun when I got into the issue, and I have the rational arguments are all that keep me that way. If someone were able to present a compelling case that I was wrong, I’d be willing to listen and re-evaluate my world views. You make many assumptions about me that are dead wrong.
As far as gun registry/confiscation cites, I’ll find them later too.
“Militia” does not refer to a federally run organized military force - in fact, when you look at the reasons for having a militia, it’s precisely the opposite. The second amendment, written in the 1790s does not refer to the national guard, formed in the 1920s (give or take a decade, I forget).
The idea makes little sense because the militia was meant to be a fighting force made up of the general populace, rather than a centralized, organized, government-controlled army or military force which could be used to oppress.
So, to try to say that the National Guard, which is technically a division of the US federal armed forces, fills that role is absurd. The roles are very much opposed.
It takes a whole lot of willfull ignorance to believe that “the right of the people” in the other amendments means, well, the right of the people, and “the right of the people” in the second amendment means the right of a branch of the federal military.
Again, I’ll find some threads covering this debate in more detail.
Technically a little wrong on both counts 
The ACP in .45 ACP stands for “automatic colt pistol” - generally, “colt .45” and “.45 acp” and just “.45” mean the same thing.
The 5.56 and .223 are practically identical and interchangable but technically not. The 5.56x45 follows a military specification for the cartridge, length, headspace, pressure, etc. and the .223 follows a commercial one. In practice, though, they’re pretty much interchangable.
The second amendment makes no mention of an organized militia, in the sense that it’s run by and controlled by government. If you simply read the works of the people who write and signed it into law, it was clear that militia was meant to remove the need and risks associated with an organized military force controlled by government.
You’re probably getting hung up on the “well-regulated” part, which is an unfortunate choice of wording. The way that it was used has since fallen out of favor over the centuries.
In 18th century parlance, you could, for example, regulate a clock. Which meant that you had it in good working order. Not that it was subject to regulations. It makes little sense to create an unorganized militia so that it wouldn’t be subject to government control, and then give the government the ability to control it (and disarm it).
As Cecil says here: “But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.”
Well, you insist that one exists, despite no evidence, and the likely fact that we’d hear about it if such a thing did.
Are you kidding? You don’t have to be a gun advocate to hate the way the media portrays sensationalist things anyway. There are lots of things that are rare and sensational, and not necesarily all of them are negative and violent, which the media will pass up because it doesn’t fit their agenda and/or they’re only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The way the media latches on to small, but isolated and tragic stories, and then covers them endlessly is disgusting. We could start a thread that covers the many ways in which modern media is generally disgusting.
Okay, I’ll read them in a bit.
A semi-automatic hunting rifle in the same caliber might only put 10 or 15, but they’d be more well aimed and controlled.
If I had an assault rifle, for most situations, I would never make use of the fully automatic mode of fire, because it has limited uses and is inefficient and generally worse for most purposes. Soldiers are trained to, in most situations, only use the semi-automatic mode of fire, because aimed, controlled fire is more effective for most situations.
If I had to fight a criminal with an assault rifle (what a silly scenario), I’d prefer him to use fully automatic rather than semi-automatic fire because he’s likely to be minimally trained and the danger he’d pose to me would actually be less that way.
No, I’d probably want my weapon to be a semi-automatic rifle, which, even if I had an automatic fire capability, and I’m more well trained than the average person in using that, I’d still keep it on semi-auto.
Could anyone with military infantry experience chime in and explain that fully automatic fire out of a rifle isn’t the preferred method of use, but only for specific situations?
Edit: How did a missing quote closing tag make the entire post dissapear?