I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous argument, not stating a fact. Perhaps you would do well with learning to argue, prior to attempting to argue. While that might sound condescending, I can assure you it isn't.

If your claim were true, then imprisonment would be unconstitutional, across the board. Though, we know that isn't true. People need to stop attempting to apply small portions of an issue to support their argument and start applying the whole issue during a discussion. At the very least, your argument might hold more legitimacy.

Firstly, no one has the right to question me on my "need" for a select-firearm/full automatic firearm. We don't question people on their need for an automatic transmission in their motor vehicle. A fully automatic firearm doesn't mean that said firearm operates in "god mode"(unlimited ammunition), so the positives gains from a full automatic firearm are not that great. Though, it isn't within society's scope of authority to question my "need", or even question why I want anything.

Secondly, a semi-automatic firearm can provide close to or the same rate of fire as a full automatic firearm(through "bump-firing", or other, "non-permanent" alterations). Still, though, one is required to reload the firearm in question. So, how exactly are "full automatic" firearms "more deadly" than semi-automatic firearms? I guess it is the same logic that is used to claim that silencers/suppressors make firearms "more deadly", when it's just as untrue. Though, I have learned(sadly) that in this instance, the anti-firearm crowd rarely, if not never, uses facts and truth to argue their points(I would rather have an honorable, and honest debate, rather than petty politically arguments which are totally unrelated).

Lastly, "full automatic" firearms are one of many types of arms that the Second Amendment covers. After all, the militia needs to be capable of fighting a war, if the need arises, and most, if not all, militaries utilize full automatic firearm, through select-fire mechanisms(safe, semi, and full auto fire options; though, not always).

What about nitrogen asphyxiation? You don't get most of the normal cues that would tell your intended targets to flee(the explosion, damage to property, and other signs), thereby potentially netting a larger kill amount, and making the job of identifying cause of death extremely difficult.

You're wrong. See the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, McDonald v Chicago, and a number of other case law for why you're wrong.

Militias have historically been focused on the male population, for obvious reasons. If human females were the naturally stronger(physically-speaking) sex, then it would have been females that were historically a part of a region's militia. There wasn't some grand conspiracy to "disenfranchise" females, or any other group.

It is high time that people drop the sexism claims, just like so many other discrimination claims. Most people don't want equal treatment, they want their version of "equal treatment", in which there exists legislative inequalities, and not just some societal inequalities.

So, you are arguing against a legal, and wholly legitimate act(self-defense), by bringing up a wholly illegal act(stealing; theft is, after all, malum in se and not malum prohibitum, like the numerous firearm and drug laws) and twisting it make your argument seem to make sense. To be clear, you have only shown yourself to be a fool. The commission of a theft isn't lessened if the perpetrator receives a benefit that far outweighs the loss to the victim. While it might make a "heartwarming story" to a number of idiots in the world today, it is still a criminal act.

If self-defense if never acceptable, then taking a life in the course of "official duties" is also never acceptable, or right. Therefore, all those within the various law enforcement and military institutions all over the world should be severely punished. Oh, wait, "taking a life is never acceptable"(so, no punishment for the aforementioned groups), correct? Yeah, your argument makes sense.

I am willing to assume that you couldn't tell me what the term "well regulated" means, within the context of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. To be nice, here is a hugely important hint: It doesn't mean "well controlled(in the legal sense, through legislative decisions), or heavily restricted".

The US Constitution, and a number of the amendments provides the means(by protecting certain rights, such as those that seem to always end up being attack by tyrannical elements) for the people of the United States to engage in sedition, if necessary. The people don't need anything "legitimized", as we give our consent for those in authority to hold positions of authority. If those people abuse the authority given, then we("the people") will turn to the available political mechanisms to remove such abusers from office. If said abusers attempt to hold onto power, then we move onto more aggressive options.

Current printing technology provides one the ability to print a lot of documents "easily and are far easier to use". So, yeah, it is a fair comparison. In fact, "the press" can spread false information far faster than any group could kill, though none of that matters. "Want" and "need" is of no business, and isn't applicable, when discussing any individual rights. Perhaps you don't know the actual definition of a "right", in the context discussed here.

How language was used at the time any amendment(or law, for that matter) is ratified is the only "use of language" that matters. One will see such discussions occur during legal challenges(if the judge or judges actually care to do their job as required by their oath, and not applying personal political interest in their work) over how a word was used during the time a law or amendment was written/ratified. The wording could be clearer, sure; though, the wording is clear enough to discover the intent when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. The only people that claim the meaning of the Second Amendment isn't clear are either ignorant of how to utilize research, or are attempting to argue against the protections of the already existing Right(the Second Amendment, like all other such amendments, provides no new right, or rights; it only protects a right, or rights, that have always existed.).

I am not going to delve into the meaning of the Second Amendment, or any other legal discussions. I am not here to educate people that won't bother to do a slightest bit of research. There is a lot of information available, almost all of it is available online. It would do everyone well to read the available information, as it affects us all.

Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun". There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency, and are literally days from a grocery store. Oh, but you felt it was intelligent to make a claim, with no facts(your "feelings" don't count) because it's the "cool" position to take.

I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.

Does the word "bossy" upset you? Do you need to share your struggles, to empower others to better complain? Worry not, as many people are here, including myself, to read your comments and lovingly mock. Now, please, continue...

Believe whatever you want. If you're idiotic enough to believe you can reason your way out of being hooked up(arrested), then good luck. Though, you were being overly simplistic in your commentary, and nothing you posted makes any sense.

In order to initiate a stop for DUI/DWI/[insert whatever title impaired driving is labeled as in one's state/nation], an officer needs to, or should observe a driving pattern to allow to said stop. If a stop is initiated for reasons other than suspicion of DUI(Driving Under the Influence), and the smell of an alcoholic beverage is observed, then a test(s) will be administered, none of which requires speech. A roadside, inadmissible test of one's breathe will show whether or not alcohol has been consumed, and the BAC(blood alcohol content), though the level reading itself is the inadmissible portion.

One can utilize speech to refuse that, or any other "roadside" test, but an arrest may be effected, a warrant sought to test the blood, breathe, and/or urine. This is called, at least in Georgia, "Implied Consent". Though, no amount of speech will reason one out of an arrest, if intoxification is observed.

Breaking the window of your own vehicle doesn't require speech to avoid an arrest either. If the event is observed by law enforcement, and said law enforcement chooses to get involved(discretion, or if one simply is intelligent and doesn't assume criminality in every event), identification can be provided in silence, and the vehicle tag will verify ownership. If authorization was given by a third-party, and the vehicle in question belongs to that third-party, then no speech would be required of you, the person suspected of a criminal act.

So, in closing, I wouldn't attempt to provide my own legal advice, if I were you.