On the contrary, the quotes I posted, from the most authoritative sources possible, do indeed refute your "position", which is little more than a convoluted attempt to twist and squirm around the obvious: the people who WROTE the 2A clearly intended there to be an individual right to arms.
That you pretend they are vague and pointless would be laughable, if it wasn't so clearly disingenuous. Indeed, I have begun to suspect that your entire position on the 2A is disingenuous. You begin by claiming to be very pro-2A and even presenting yourself as extravagant in your support of it, but then you present specious arguments by non-authoritative sources against the individual right, ignore the clear and obvious sentiments of those who wrote the 2A, ignore the body of jurisprudence that affirms the individual right, and otherwise twist and convolute and attempt to define terms without supporting evidence of any substance, to a degree I can most politely call incredible.
When considering the way you manevuered yourself into a position of claiming 2A advocacy, then twisted around into arguing against individual 2A rights, one is tempted to bring out terms like Hegelian Dialectic.
I have no time for such games. Your points have been repeatedly and conclusively refuted; your failure to recognize this reality is not my concern.