[Uncle Billy]

So you only want to disarm civilians from owning effective firearms.

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

The concept of need is entirely irrelevant to a right.

The right is to defend one's self with firearms. There are plenty of firearms that meet that objective that aren't capable in the wrong hands of killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, unnecessary for personal defense in any probable scenario in civilian life.

You fail define crowd-killers.

A "crowd killer" is a weapon that can quickly and effectively lay deadly fire on multiple personnel congregated in close proximity in a short period of time- like a theater or a classroom, for example.

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.

No, I have no authority and what I wrote doesn't claim any. It states my identity as a gun owner and user.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

It's a truth, and being so challenges the assertion that a private citizen needs the capabilities necessary to provide such a defense.

So someone should decide for an individual and autonomous citizen their own capability based on a centralized and politicized program meant for warfare?

Yes, the same assessment made of military recruits before they are issued weapons if the intent is to possess and use the weapons of modern warfare the military uses.

Not only do crazy people slip through the cracks as already established, but more importantly a lot of the screening process is to stem lawsuits.

Off the point.

You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Totally relevant: Both are very effective modern arms of war, one of which is not available to civilians at any price (a violation of the 2A?), the other is available in many places to anyone who can steal one or who has the money regardless of any other aspect of who they are or what their mental state is.

More people die from overeating, smoking, drinking, automobiles, and .22lr caliber firearms.

Overeating, smoking (removed from others), and drinking are self- destructive, they aren't evils done to someone by someone else. Automobiles aren't used against others in an effort to kill them in any number that's significant. Calibers are not the issue.

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

A "military state" is one run by the military, that's clearly not the proposal.