No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

I am also relatively new to this site, but as far as I know, when a person forfeits a round, you may keep on debating because the opponent may have just missed his/her turn. This is what happened to me, I was not able to get on and debate in time, and for that I apologize. I am back now and ready to finish. Now back to the debate; My opponent tries to turn around what I said in the previous round by clarifying what the amendment was referring to. I talked about how back in the time, when it was written, there were no weapons that could do the extent of damage a semi-qutomatic weapon could. My opponent tries to contradict what I was saying by talking about different kinds of weapons (not just guns). In my previous argument, I was referring to only guns, because this debate is based on guns and no other weapons. So bringing up canons was irrelevant. I do not feel that my next argument was a distortion of my opponent's. He specifically stated that semi-automatic weapons give people "the means to defend themselves from criminals. .. " In the hypothetical situation I presented, a person was defending them self against a criminal. When one reads the rule that my opponent said, he/she will realize that my situation was an example of the very thing that my opponent was talking about. My opponent noticed this and realized that the situation I gave was quite unethical, however it still abided by his rule, so in a effort to redirect the argument, he said that the semi-automatic weapon was not relevant in this specific situation. .. If this is the case, then why did he even bring it up for this debate? This debate is about semi-automatic weapons, so either way, my opponent loses this part of the debate. Either his argument was irrelevant, or he gave an unrealistic rule that does not help him at all for this debate. In my opponent's next attempt to invalidate my argument, he talks about how it is socially acceptable to fire upon a leader. He makes some point about older civilizations and past times. The key word I used in this part of my argument was "socially. " In today's United States, it will most certainly NOT be socially acceptable to fire upon a leader. .. say, the president. When I use the word "socially," I am referring to the general public. How would the general public react to a shooting of the resident? How would his supporters react? We can see this by past events. Now just imagine that, all those hurt people, all those angry people, except now, according to my opponent, it is socially acceptable to fire upon leaders with semi-automatic weapons. The chaos would be unimaginable. This just supports my main argument for no more semi-automatic weapons to the public. My opponent takes my last point and says ". .. ownership of semi automatic weapons will only be effective for law-abiding citizens. A person who wants to commit murder will not be held back by a law that prevents anybody else to be lawfully allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon. " This statement is unrealistic. Mostly because at one point, even people who are criminals NOW, were innocent at one point. It only takes one time commit murder. Of course there are people who have outstanding records, however this certainly does not limit the the chance for someone without an outstanding record to commit murder. This innocent person could very well, and realistically, be an innocent law-abiding citizen who decides that he/she wants to go murder 20 people with his/her automatic weapon. In this scenario, my opponents argument is, once again, invalidated. My opponent's arguments are too loose and have too many holes. In realistic modern day society, these arguments are not strong in the defense of selling semi-automatic weapons to the public.