As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.

If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?

BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.

So you are afraid to read the Constitution since it will prove you wrong? Here's the place to go to if you just don't like to read and be properly informed.
Find a copy of the Constitution. Go to Article I, Section VIII, para 16. You can go read the rest if you want.

I wasn't aware of any arguments against me, other than from those who don't like to be presented with facts that don't support or contradicts their dogma.

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Yeah, that is called the National Guard. What that has to do with gun ownership is... nothing.

The militia is not the National Guard. Why not research what the US definition is of the militia?