They're still guns. As someone else has already asked you, what exactly differentiates hunting weapons from other weapons? Are they magically imbued with an ability to never possibly be used for something other than hunting?
And where does the limit hit on when a weapon stops being a 'hunting' weapon? Is a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with bird shit a hunting weapon? Maybe I own a Colt carbine, but since I use it 100% for taking out gophers and other 'nuisance' animals on my property, does it count as a hunting weapon?

that's because the US Supreme Court is wrong. Truth and legality have nothing to do with each other.
That's the folly of human nature. The original intent of the founding fathers of one of the most incredible political experiments in the history of mankind intended for every man to be able by law to defend his country, not to own a gun.
If those same fathers saw what America has become, they would build a time machine and never found it.

Concealibility, cultural tolerance/acceptance, ability to carry in public.
That's the facts gentleman, and your crime rates and studies back them up, and vice versa.

Stop. Just stop, because all you're doing is demonstrating you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. In the environment following the American Revolution the drafters of the constitution were incredibly wary of governmental power, having just fought a war to break away from an overbearing government. The personal ownership of arms had been essential in this fight (in fact the very first battle of the revolution, the Battle of Lexington, started when a British troop ordered the village militia in Lexington to lay down their arms and disperse), and it was recognized that this right needed to be enshrined so that the people had the capability to defend themselves, whether it be against criminals, external invaders, or their own government. And if you don't want to just take my word for it, here are some directly from some of the framers of the US constitution:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams
And the list can go on and on. Do a little research yourself if you still don't believe me. Let me tell you something, though, when I was younger I was fervently in favor of strong gun control, and engaged in some of the same mental acrobatics you've been engaging in. However, over time as I actually took the time to look through the actual statistics on guns and crime, as well as give a deeper consideration to the issues involved, I came to the opinion I currently hold. The problem you seem to have, judging by the way you've been jumping from argument to argument as they're shot down one after another (and assuming you're not simply trolling) is that you know you're opposed to widespread gun ownership, but you don't have a clear conception of just why you're opposed to it. The arguments you present are all half-baked justifications after the fact. You need to step back for a minute and actually consider the data and information out there, without trying to twist every bit you come across to fit into your dogmatic views.

Thanks for the info about the magpul. I hadn't realized it used STANAG. I think it would be fun to shoot. The compact size is really appealing to me.
And yes, I was speaking of the A3. The older ones seem a little "space-agey" to me. That and I like the fact that the new ones have rails in stead of the integrated scope.
DarkPhoenix-
It might also be worth adding, the general concept of the Social Contract was a guiding philosophy for the early Americans. The 2nd admendment provided an underpinning for the philosophy; as did the 9th and 10.

Incorrect.
*I* have a political science degree, what exactly are your credentials? If you wish to have a debate on a matter, please indicate why your authority is to be trusted.
The US constitution has been misinterpreted due to the dead interpretation, which thus leads to incorrect use of terms. Much like people mistaking mistranslations for dogma in the bible, the US constitution has many terms whose original meaning has been lost due to the meaning of the terms changing, while the interpretation must follow the words literally. In Canada, we look at what the INTENT was, and interpret that to allow our constitution to evolve. Is ours better? Not nessasarily. We do have the downfall of ethereal interpretation which goes agaisnt the spirit of Canadian culture (Such as multiculturalism, Quebec appeasement, etc), but we gain the ability to rationalize what our constitutional framework should entail.
Thanks.

Step 1: Claim that the Supreme Court is "wrong"
Step 2: Claim that your political science degree makes you right (compared to say, the justices of the Supreme Court)
Step 3: Look dumb

And put your junk in that-- sorry!

Always a questionable assumption with 'humility surpassers'. Always...
;)

My authority isn't to be trusted. That was kind of the whole point of citing statistics, laying out arguments, bring in actual quotes, etc. Even if we were having a discussion about organic chemistry (my own area of expertise) I wouldn't ask people to simply take my word for things, but rather would present arguments capable of standing purely on their own merits.
However, since you seem to have no intention of addressing my arguments (or presenting further arguments of your own) and are simply falling back on a (rather pitiful) claim to authority, I think we're pretty much done here.

What can I say, despite my usual cynicism I'm a hopeless optimist at times.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have a degree in economics and another one in government. I also got these degrees form the University of Virginia, a school founded and built by Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founders of the United States and one of the primary formers of the Constitution. Every history class I attended, such as U.S. Economic History, the Politics of Independence (or some similarly cheesily named class), or Antebellum Politics, spent weeks on Jefferson's opinions and writings about the U.S. Constitution and how they meshed with the opinions of the other Founders.
But, seriously, who cares where either of us went to school or what we studied? I don't care if you are Barrack Obama himself, it won't convince me that you are correct about the intentions of Founders. Not in the face of historical fact as evidenced by the quotes that DarrkPhoenix provided. Thanks, by the way, DarrkPheonix, now I don't have to find them and post them :). Why don't you try rebutting some of those before throwing around your so-called credentials?
Feel free to disagree with the Constitution, that is one of the freedoms we in the U.S. hold dear. It is out First Amendment after all. But, please don't try to warp the actual language to fit your personal agenda. That is intellectually dishonest, and quite frankly, boring.

Actually, you know what, I'm curious now. Please explain to me your pure and absolutely correct interpretation of the Constitution. It's not like there are people who spend their lives studying the document so I'm sure you with your Canadian undergrad poli-sci degree must be the best source. Go ahead, enlighten me.

Sure am glad this guy was allowed to own a gun.
[url=http://autos.aol.com/gallery/weird-car-news/man-shoots-his-way-out?ncid=AOLCOMMautodynlsec0004&icid=main|main|dl5|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fautos.aol.com%2Fgallery%2Fweird-car-news%2Fman-shoots-his-way-out%3Fncid%3DAOLCOMMautodynlsec0004]http://autos.aol.com/gallery/weird-car-news/man-shoots-his-way-out?ncid=AOLCOMMautodynlsec0004&icid=main|main|dl5|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fautos.aol.com%2Fgallery%2Fweird-car-news%2Fman-shoots-his-way-out%3Fncid%3DAOLCOMMautodynlsec0004[/url]

The guy got scared by his phone and drove off a bridge? I'm not sure I'd feel safe around someone that twitchy.

I have a feeling that anjohl's generalized point is valid to an extent, but it would be a complex argument to effectively formulate and express. I doubt anyone wants to dedicate that time to convincing some people who like Fallout that it's correct.

My point is extremely vallid, and has a 4 year Political Science major behind it.
I flex my muscles a lot, and sometimes it's to showboat, grandstand, or instigate, but not here.
Constitutional interpretation was my specialty, and I was quite interested when I saw the topic on here. The responses scare me, since many of the Americans seem so clueless to the actual effects legalized guns have on their once-great society.