Also, yes, while you may be able to get ARs, you're subject to dumb arbitrary restrictions[1] on what you can put on that AR.

And finally, CA and NY are doing their best to ban body armor. That makes me laugh, because now you can't even own methods of self-defense that aren't meant to injure anyone.

I consider CA and NY foreign nations at this point[2] (among a few others). It seems they do whatever they can to keep the common man down. They're good at one thing though: making it easy to "cheat" your reproductive system, and evade the responsibility of parenting while maintaining your rabid degeneracy as much as you want. I'm not even religious, and I find the rise in abortion disturbing. Although I guess the demographic that tend to get abortions will just be unbreeding themselves out of plurality, by definition.

[1] https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in...

[2] Should not be construed as me implying that red states are great. They're simply the lesser of two evils. I at least feel comfortable in red, although there are many things I disagree with.

None of these would be restrictions under a non-absolutist interpretation ignoring the entire start of the 2A. Granted, this does prevail now after decades of relentless promotion. That does not make it right.

Red flag laws are for people who have actually demonstrated their inability to control their own violence. There are a number of incidents of mass shooters who would have been prevented or slowed by such laws. And again, these people would be drummed out of any well-regulated militia.

Similarly, regulating or registering certain types of weapons does not seem out of bounds in a well-regulated militia, especially in urban environments.

I do have some problem with allowing police to seize weapons on suspicion, depending on the definition of suspicion, and the process to get them back. There are obvious circumstances where it should be not only allowed but required, and others where it is blatant state overreach.

Concealed carry, again in the context of a regulated militia — how is that a problem? You may have to show that you are armed.

Remember, even in the military itself, while weapons are issued and frequently used, they don't have people carrying any kind of weapon everywhere at any time, e.g., [0].

Again, the stated right is NOT any person of any level of mental or skilled competence can have access to any weapon at any time and any place.

It is: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The very first words are about regulation.

And the current results are proving the idiocy of a policy of unfettered access: 51 years of war 101,813 deaths

3 years of US gun deaths 133,759

US Death count in War

Vietnam War 1955-75 58,281

Korean War 1950-53 36,516

Iraq War 2003-11 4,614

Afghanistan War 2001-21 2,402

US gun deaths 2019-21 133,759

Every other western nation has similar levels of video games, mental illness, or whatever else you want to blame it on. Yet this only happens with any frequency here.

So, again, considering the ACTUAL constitutional intent of a well-regulated militia, what restrictions ACTUALLY INFRINGE ON RIGHTS OF SANE AND RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE.

I still have not seen a single instance of any actual legislator actually introducing a law that would broadly prohibit responsible gun ownership.

Show me one.

[0] https://www.military.com/pcs/can-you-carry-gun-military-base...

He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect. I'm no in CA, but I'm quite sure he still has them (or at least did while I visited after the law was in effect) and that the law did not require confiscating previously-owned firearms, i.e., they were grandfathered in.