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

Some people spend far too much time focused on the "gun" part of "gun violence" and nowhere near enough time paying attention to the "violence" part of "gun violence." Violence is going to happen with or without firearms. It is violence which needs to be addressed, not the tools with which it is done.

And if you would like to address that, then you need to answer some questions about it.

If you can't answer the questions, then you can't do anything about the violence. You don't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. You cure it by treating the cause. What are the causes of the violence? That's the question which needs to be asked and answered.

I currently live in a state with stupid gun control laws and they want to add more. Whether they get to before everyone has left before they tax everyone out of state is a different question. But if you want to fight me trying to get my rights back, a little peice at a time, just because "but it's still a form of gun control" then to hell with you people, you would be the exact same as the asshats trying to take them away

And the answer is really rather simple. The causes of the violence are socio-economic.

and also the aforementioned drugs

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-05-every-mass-shooting-over-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-it-isnt-guns.html

Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin

repeat.

@LotheronPrime exactly. 204 years of Civilian ownership of firearms with very rare incidents of mass shootings by civilians outside of gang violence during prohibition. So why did we go for over 200 years with exceptionally rare instances of mass shootings by civilians, and then all of a sudden the rate increased to 1 every 300 days in the 1980's, and then after 2012, why did that rate triple to one every 80 Days?

Boy, you guys really stop listening the moment you label it "gun control". How progressive of you.

I don't think that the compromise is necessary. At all.

And I do apologize, Grenade, but I was talking with someone besides you as well as with you. To say that I stopped listening, however, would be incorrect.

If I thought "gun control" would change anything, sure, I'd look at it

but its futile

its not ht eproblem

again, London murders are higher than NY

and they have gun control