I think you and I agree for the most part actually.

somewhat, Yes.

So far we can agree to more extensive background checks

Check

banning of private sales without a~~ license,~~ background check

there we go.

much more robust safety and situational training

For a concealed carry license, yes.

and some limit on magazine capacity.

Somewhat yes; not really a limit, but perhaps treat the large novelty magazines like a firearm. (honestly, they are really just toys. They are so freaking heavy and bulky that they are useless for accuracy, and they have a tendency to jam up all the time.

I'm willing to try something like that and forego any ban on actual styles of weapons. So have we solved it yet?

Pretty much...

But neither is a good reason to allow the sale of silencers or automatic fire for civilian use.

Just wanted to point out both are perfectly legal for civilian use. I own a silencer, it works great to keep the noise down while hog hunting near cattle. There honestly is no reason to ban silencers. They are not all like you see in the movies. Example.

I find it archaic and irrelevant given the wide gap between civilian and military weapons capability.

That is not really the point.

AR15s don't pose even a smidge of a threat to the military, not even a foreign military.

They do, but that also is not really the point either. An armed civilian population has proven very capable of using hand held arms to secure other heavy arms, even in current modern engagements.

When the amendment was written, people made their own bullets and fired them at a rate of about one per minute.

not at all relevant, if anything you argument supports access to military arms to civilians, not the other way around.

There were no jet fighters or stealth bombers or ICBMs.

Nope...

So guns were reasonably sufficient for people (white males only) to own and use to defend their state.

They still are.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense or home defense or anything personal in nature.

But it is, this argument has been made, challenged, and ruled on for over 100 years; and SCOTUS has always agreed that these uses for firearms were intended to be protected by the 2nd amendment.

It's meant for the citizens of a state (in the absence of a central army or an armory)

Incorrect. It is meant for all persons to be secure in themselves, Possessions and in their state; in absence or in supplement to a federal army and organized militia. (USC 10, federalist 25).

to possess weapons to protect their state against an invading force.

one of the reasons, but not the only.

Since that's no longer possible with handheld weapons.

It is.

and because we now have state armies to replace citizen militias,

Incorrect. There is the Federal Army, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. The State Army to protect against the Federal army, the people to protect themselves from the State Army, all to protect against foreign invasion.

This is what is meant by regulated militia. The right to form an armed Militia is regulated (protected) by the US constitution.

the Amendment itself is obsolete for its intended purpose.

It's purpose is just as, if not more, important now than then.

Militias were always subdivisions of armies and under the direction of the army,

Incorrect.

not independently operating individuals.

Incorrect.

So if we're going to stick to the Amendment, then I'm perfectly fine with people owning single fire muskets.

If you stick with the amendment, I would be able to buy a MK19 fully automatic grenade launcher and an M1 tank.

Again, the pistol grip isn't the only feature that was being banned

And again, it is still pointless and achieves nothing.

< There's just enough justification for banning fully automatic fire or bazookas or suitcase nukes. I suppose one could responsibly use a suitcase nuke, but that's not really the point is it?

Well a nuke is a weapon of mass destruction, lets not get silly. The other two are in fact legal for civilian ownership and use.

Of course it is! Ask an Army Ranger if a few seconds makes a difference in combat. They'll tell you it's an eternity on the battlefield.

You just did, you play too much call of duty.

You've either never actually been in a combat situation or you're just plain lying to yourself. If it really makes no difference, then let's you and I enter a combat situation where I have a fully automatic AK47 and you have a bolt action .22 rifle. We'll see who wins.

I have, 3 deployments.

AK47 vs. bolt action .22 rifle is a much bigger difference.

time often matters a great deal.

Rarely in mass shootings, I only know of one.

In America that just translates to more armed cops in black neighborhoods. That's not going to solve anything.

Well I don't know about that. what I was talking about was armed guards and staff in schools.