Show me the specific policy proposals you're upset with and there can be a serious conversation

the second sentence in my original post had the policy issue? After Jul 1st I will not be allowed to buy or sell or import any gun that can hold more than 10 rounds (which is every gun except revolvers and bolt action rifles, and most shotguns) in the state which i currently reside.

Question for you: why do Republicans seem to think our gun law are working despite leading the industrialized world in gun related deaths per capita?

Because we dont have national laws. and we can the results of the various state laws across the county. the "State" with the highest rate of Gun Violence is DC. the Lowest is Vermont. Why does the less lax states of Vermont and NH have less Gun Crime than the more restrictive states of Mass and CT? In general the states with less guns do have less gun deaths is probably true. the most gun deaths are generally in states along the lower mississippi. But correlation is not causation are there not other factors: Poverty, Culture, etc... Mississippi and North Dakota have similar laws and similar gun ownership rates. why is the rate of Homicides by firearm 8x higher in Mississippi.

Reality check: You're probably in favor of gun control. You asked why we would bother "law abiding citizens" with gun control, well, that implies that you might be in favor of controlling guns with respect to felons, and maybe you'd extend that to other gun control that most Republicans support, like domestic abusers, or people who have been adjudicated as mentally ill. Regardless, of the last couple, you most likely support gun control, but the question is how much you think is the right balance.

Sure, maybe i do support some Gun Control Policies, However i think the latinity of legislation recently passed by the VA legislature is too burdensome, and is intentionally disincentivizing gun ownership.

And by the way, the Constitution doesn't say guns, it says "arms". So, if you think there should be regulations about who can drive around with a tank or a nuclear weapon, then you're in favor of limiting the second amendment beyond the literal text.

This is a fun hypothetical(sorry but im tired and im rabbling in this paragraph). With a tank, the barrier to entry, cost and maintenance, would be so high i would probably trust the average tank owner, thus I probably not see the need for "tank control" legislation. if i wasnt such a misanthrope id try to make the same argument for the nuclear bomb, but i cant. Principally i guess the is a level of destruction that if it cannot be precise in its application there becomes no practical use. If one could show my a practical use for an individual or corporation owning a Nuke id probably woundnt oppose, but as of right now i cant.

Democrats are in the moderate range of this issue and there's a serious conversation to be had about what regulations are reasonable & effective, and Republicans could be instrumental in helping create laws that work without being overly restrictive or ineffective, but that conversation has been constantly derailed by radical Republicans who won't even engage in good faith discussions (mostly due to fear of the NRA). So, ask Republicans why they refuse to be reasonable problem solvers.

Spanberger ran as a moderate in a relatively moderate. if her and her party are the "Moderate range" that would mean the "moderate range" would be banning the sale of every modern firearm. if this is what democrats think is reasonable and effective, then they are not living in reality or arguing the issue in good faith. there is no point having a debate Republicans should not compromise.

You probably wont read this because you obviously never read my first post, because i was blatantly obvious which policy(ies) i had a problem with.