That was in no way a defense of your contradictions.
Your quote.........."You have the right to defend your life or liberty against anyone attempting to take it, use maximum force to stop aggression, and you have the right to use the most efficient tool to do so."
You went out of your way to say tool and not gun. The founders went out of their way to say arms and not guns.
Do you have a constitutional right to keep and bear a fully automatic weapon?
Do you have a constitutional right to keep and bear anti aircraft missiles?
Do you have a constitutional right to keep and bear mustard (mustered) gas?
Where is the line drawn and why? Is there room for legitimate disagreement among people as to where that line is drawn and why?
I know there is even disagreement within the 2a crowd in the PF. How can that be if the 2a is so clear-cut?
Obviously it is not as clear-cut as many try to claim, and there must be interpretations made.
There is no contradiction except that in your head, the false premise you constructed by excerpting, ignoring my mentioning GUN twice, the 2A and militia. If you had an honest question "are you saying mustard gas, nukes, etc should be legal?" but you didn't. You posed a dishonest premise by saying my logic establishes such and that it is undeniably stupid. I agreed, that it was dumb for you to make that leap.
Again, it's undeniably stupid to introduce that hash into discussion, then imply the other person is stupid when you can ask a simple question. The discussion, my post in reply to you is about GUNS. Citizens shooting someone is maximum force. Got it now?
Autos: I think we probably do as U.S. vs Miller would imply, that the court
having no notice that such a weapon (a short-barreled shotgun) was commonly used by the military, was not found to be protected
on that basis. Miller had died, and the other defendant (Lawton or Layton) and his defense didn't show, thus the court has no evidence presented that SB shotguns had been used in our military conflicts, which they have since WWI and probably before. My advice: it's not an issue very much in the mind of gun owners and enthusiasts; control advocates & prohibitionists might well let the dog lie and cease referring to semiautos as weapons of war.
No to missiles and mustard gas, as those have no personal defensive, sporting, or hunting uses and are decidedly not the type of weapon the militia - every man of fighting age - keeps by the bed or behind the door, thus could not show up bearing mustard gas because he certainly can't keep it as a personal arm to begin with.
Do I think, if it became necessary to fight our own government using such weaponry on us, the founders would object to citizens getting their hands on them and using them? - no.
Semiautos like AR/AK types - the founders would undoubtedly approve.
There's room for some disagreement when not painting the other person with your imagination and impugning them with your brush; start there.
Where the line is, is the line I have at least dozens of times on these forums stated it and just to you again in the second response;
it's about firearms which "have everyday utility and can be borne on the person. If mustered (not mustard) the people (males)- the militia - were expected to appear with their own arms and ammo, the arms they have access to in everyday life." That's it.
