> Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. Specify what you mean by "worked". There

> Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. Specify what you mean by "worked". There is little evidence that these regulations had any appreciable impact on homicides or other crimes.[1] > If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. The large majority of funding for gun rights activism comes from grass roots donors[2] Your interpretation of the constitution has no basis. Let's go over the top 3 reasons why: 1. The text specifically says "the right of the people" (emphasis mine). The Bill of Rights is pretty explicit about specifying rights which apply to the people and those which specifically deal with the rights of states. 2. Militia has historically included every able-bodied male of fighting age, not just state militias, and this definition is even encoded in the federal law in United States Code Title 10 section 246 3. There is no evidence to suggest that disarming the American population was even conceivable in the early republic, and the kinds of arms that were privately owned at the time of the revolution included warships with canons. I really must ask: what (in your opinion) would have to change about the text of the 2nd amendment for it to mean what I think it means? > However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. I didn't say we had to accept mass shootings, just that our response should not be a knee-jerk reaction to media firestorms that fail to achieve their objective or even result in more overall deaths (not to mention a more authoritarian state). We've already accepted a stupid amount of security theater due to media-driven panics - let's not continue the trend. > It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border. Why aren't there more murders in the state the gun was purchased? --- [1] https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explai... [2] https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding...