I’m sorry, but this doesn’t address the reasons I gave why the 2nd amendment is not appropriate to use in the argument. Do you care to address the reasons I gave?

Briefly, sure. Decisions that are close have the same impact on the actions of those subject to the decision as a unanimous decision. Where one draws the line as to facts to exclude is a too subjective for me.

Good question. Why? Do you mean for self-defense? I’m not following that part.

And again: Many countries have the right to self-defense while strictly limiting gun rights. So saying ‘self-defense’ does not form an argument. Self-defense without a gun is perfectly possible, and self-defense is also something that will, for most people, never come up in a situation where a gun would have benefited them.

Many countries may well be right for them, but wrong for us. Lets say a country restricts gun ownership so a ordinary citizen can’t get one. Fine, What stops a criminal from getting a gun or another weapon that a law abiding victim cannot overcome short of a weapon a capable as a pistol? little if anything depending on details about that un named country and the prevalence of dangerous weapons in the hands of predators.

Can you please state clearly if you agree with the proposal that everyone with a gun should be required to train for the purpose they have the gun and to be tested in that training?

This would, of course, mean that many, many current gun owners in places like Texas where gun laws are incredibly lax would actually have to get training.
Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com

I have already agreed in principle. And I would submit that those who already have guns should have the option of going straight to testing to respect the training they already have. Or to correct where they don’t.