I've read most of it as an impartial judge and here's my verdict: you're both mixing some valid arguments with bullshit, you both lost focus long time ago and your stupid style of replying is impossible to follow.

The reality is simply that the US constitution is an outdated document that should not serve as the basis for laws in a modern country. It was great at creating an extremely stable system but unfortunately the system it created sucks. It completely failed at granting meaningful rights to it's citizens and preventing fascism. Arguing about how some slave rapists envisioned the state should handle semi automatic rifles has as much sense as arguing about maximum possible Warp speed or something. It's all fantasy because founding fathers had no idea what the country will look like 200 years later and didn't prepare the laws for it.

why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway?

Begging the question, asssumes the conclusion that the other person is intent on promoting tyranny.

Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State?

Strawman, misrepresents the other person's argument.

Why are you carrying water for the fascists by dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?

Red herring, attempts to change the subject under debate from interpretation of the 2A to if the other person is supporting fascists.

And the whole paragraph is a kind of ad hominem/appeal to emotion.

Hey, I'm not here to say if you're right or wrong about your interpretation of the 2A. I'm just here to tell you you're being a fallacious asshole.

Good luck convincing anyone of anything 😏

Everything you just wrote is a fucking lie

Again, right back at you.

I can explain it to you, (and I have, clearly, accurately, and exhaustively so) but I can't understand it for you.

the "shall not be infringed" part does not depend on the "well-regulated" part

It very much does. The amendment is structured as [reason for conclusion], [conclusion.

If the conclusion had been inherently true regardless of the reasoning of the first part, the first part would have been superfluous and thus omitted.

The fact that it wasn't means that it's not superfluous, which means that it's the basis for the conclusion.

Well-regulated" is a reason and an aspiration, but it is not a requirement.

What utter nonsense! In law as well as in any other logically coherent statement, something can't be a reason for the conclusion being reached without being necessary AKA a requirement for the conclusion to be reached.

Otherwise, "shall not be infringed" is the equivalent of a biblical commandment and the rest of the amendment is just a superfluous afterthought.

That's NOT how secular law works.

We were arguing about the intent of the founding fathers.

We were arguing about the intent of the law, which is what the law says. Otherwise, it's useless.

the documents where they literally explained their intent disagreement

Fixed it for you. There's no rhetorical hocus pocus fancy enough to make the statements of opinion in the Federalist match the text of the law and in cases of legal dispute, the text of the law itself takes precedence over the opinions of colleagues.

don't count because "that's just, like, their opinion, man."

Yes. That's what an opinion piece is, and the Federalist Papers were opinion pieces.

Opinion isn't law no matter whose opinion.

That is just blatant bad faith.

Nope. That's a good faith explanation of the difference between opinion pieces and law.

That reality is inconsistent with your pet theory isn't the fault of reality or the way in which I'm explaining it to you

You don't give a fuck about what's true or correct or right; you're just trying to beat me into submission with a gish gallop of bullshit.

This you?

Again, the law doesn't say what you think it says, and never did.

Again with your counterfactual crusade against logic and reading comprehension 🙄

Speaking of which: why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway?

Holy strawman/false dichotomy combo, Batman!

Must be running out of less obvious ways to deny objective reality when you're resorting to fallacies THAT blatant! 😄

Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State?

I never said or even implied anything of the sort.

The people being able to defend themselves against the most powerful military in the history of humanity ≠ allowing any untrained idiot with delusions of grandeur or paranoia about their neighbors trying to kill them to own and carry deadly tools of violence.

Why are you carrying water for the fascists

Again, I'm doing no such thing, and never have.

The vast majority of the fascists and their followers agree with your pet theory over my reality-based reading of plain and clear English.

It's not my fault that the ones most loudly pretending to be the holy protectors of liberty are in fact the most ardent supporters of the tyrannical kakistocracy that is the fascist Trump administration.

dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?

Once again, you're displaying an uncanny ability to come to the exact opposite conclusion to one based in reality.

"Dogmatically pushing their sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law" describes most of the "guns for everyone no matter what" crowd, which are almost always the same people who want to disenfranchise and abuse every persecuted minority group and allow cops to murder with impunity.