No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public

All right thanks for explaining the rules! Now back to business ;) My opponents believes that I have turned around his argumentation by referring not only to rifles but other types of weapons as well. I would like to point out though, that in his original argument my opponent wrote: "It should be common knowledge that when this amendment was made, weaponry was significantly different from the way it is today" and "would our forefathers have set that amendment the same way if the weapons were able to kill 10 people in 5 seconds? " My opponent did not limit his argument on rifles, but clearly stated that there were no "weapons . .. able to kill 10 people in 5 seconds". This is, as I have proved not correct. Furthermore, even if my opponent had specified that he was referring only to rifles or handguns, the argumentation would still be flawed, as the Second Amendment does not refer to "guns", "handguns" or "rifles", it uses the more broad and generic word "arms". Even if this debate is "based on guns and no other weapons" - although the title of the debate is not "No more sale of Semi-Automatic Guns to the public" but "No more sale of Semi-Automatic weaponry to the public" - the point that my opponent was trying to make is still invalid since his assumption that there were no weapons able to inflict great damage is wrong. My opponent fails to recognize his inability to distinguish between a lawful act of self defense and the deliberate killing of a human being as an act of revenge. The example with the person who shoots the robber of his hat five times with a semi-automatic weapon is meaningless and the use of a semi-automatic weapon, in this case, irrelevant. An act of self-defence, under US law, is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force. My opponent's example was clearly not an act of self-defence, therefore the use of force, by means of a semi-automatic weapon, a knife or by bear hands, would not be legal anyhow. If however, a person is in his own house and attacked by armed intruders, his use of deadly force with a semi-automatic weapon is within the law. Preventing a law abiding citizen from legally own a semi-automatic weapon would put him in jeopardy in this circumstance, as it would be harder for him to defend himself with a manual weapon or with no weapon at all. In his next attempt to contort my argument, my opponent writes that define as 'socially acceptable to fire upon a leader" and that "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. " This is a vainglorious and deceptive misrepresentation of my argument. I have clearly stated that it would be acceptable only if "a leader becomes subversive and dictatorial" and with the intent "to reinstate a democratic form of government. " If a President or other political, social or military figure were to become subversive and would for example, dissolve the Congress, arrest members of the courts or use military force against the citizens of the State, then it is within the right of the people to use force against it. This principle has its foundation in the idea that the government is of the people, by the people and from the people and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution safeguards the right to the people to be sovereign. A ban on semi-automatic weapons for the civil population would shift the balance of power to the forces of the state or of an invading power in the case of an armed conflict. In his last argument, my opponent tries to rebuke my point by writing: "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. " My opponent seems to hint that a person who wants to commit murder wouldn't be able to if the possession semi-automatic weapon were not legal. He does not recognize that being legally able to own a semi-automatic weapon does not encourage or excuse murder and that a person who is determined to commit murder can kill people with a multitude of largely spread instruments and machines other than semi-automatic weapons. He also seems to ignore, that since a criminal, by definition, is someone who acts against the law, making a law banning the ownership of semi-automatic weapons would prevent him to acquire one. My opponent tries to make the case that banning the legal ownership of semi-automatic weapons is a case of public security, weather I attest that allowing ownership of semi-automatic weapons is a matter of individual rights and liberty, and as Benjamin Franklin said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " Gun ownership is a fundamental right that we should not give up in exchange for more governmental control in our private lives which comes masked as a false sense of security! Let Freedom Ring!