California and Maryland require new residents to report their firearms.

The "other side"'s goal is complete disarmament of the populace

no thanks

they get nothing

Good for you. You get no where.

I don't need to get anywhere

I have the right to bear arms

no one can say different.

Unless the constitution is changed, which wont be

this really is a pointless argument. for all.

Fine, let the other side win

"shall not be infringed"

the other side will not win

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and a New York all I have some kind of registration required for so-called "assault weapons" and/or "assault pistols" and/or 50 caliber or larger weapons and/or high-capacity magazines.

They will if they get enough people.

meh, it'll never happen

Hell, they are starting to get private businesses on their side

I don't live in any of the aforementioned States, nor the District of Columbia, nor do I have any intention of ever living in any of those States or the District of Columbia.

why should anyone have to comprise on their rights? I mean, what's the point? How will me compromising on my rights stop crazy people from doing crazy things?

You see, there becomes a problem when you refuse to compromise even a little to shift the existing stuff in your favor. There already is gun control laws. There is a federal ban on actually assault rifles, which is to say fully automatic ones. So say what you want about it never happening. I say it already has happened and could get worse if you try and win people over.

In fact, the only States on that list I have ever even been to are Maryland and California. I will have to travel through California, maybe, when I move back where I'm going to move back to, but I don't think transporting my weapons through the state will have any kind of registration requirements. And frankly, I'll probably go the more Northern route, so I don't have to go through California. But that depends on the time of year, as well.

that doesn't make any of those constitutional in the intent of the founding fathers of the 2A

regardless of the fact that they exist

The fact they exist is why I say you lost

https://i.redd.it/k4vx26v89uu01.jpg

Actually, there is no federal ban on assault rifles. The sale and transfer of them is strictly regulated, but you can buy them. You can't buy a new one anymore, not since 1987? 1986? I forget, but anyway, you can still buy used ones, but doing so is strictly regulated. Not banned.

Because if they are unconstitutional, how are they still on the books, and being enforced

yup

because they have to be challenged in the courts to be unconstitutional

Well, in order for a law to be judged unconstitutional, it has to be fought in court and make it to the Supreme Court.

They have been, and they usually don't win

Otherwise they wouldn't still be on the books.

most of the time that's because of activist judges or judges that really don't understand the constituion

But that is simply a Judiciary judgement, and the fact of them being unconstitutional is not actually dependent on what the Supreme Court says. I mean, for example, let's take law X. Let's say law X is found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Was it constitutional before their finding? No. They simply had not yet ruled on it.

again, you still haven't addressed my point.. exactly how will increasing gun control laws stop people from BREAKING LAWS?

Again. London Murders vs NY murders this year

Nor is the Supreme Court infallible. If they were, they wouldn't have issued the decision which they did in the case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. 😁

Guns are NOT the problem

I honestly believe a good majority of it has to do with the proliferation of anti-depression and anxiety drugs

There is a difference between increasing gun control laws, and restructuring what is already here to make it less restrictive.

people lives with guns for a very long time without the types of crimes that have happened in the last few years