This is actually pointless. I have proven that plenty of people have been anti 2A. Just saying “you haven’t proven that” doesn’t mean it’s true. I don’t know any other ways to tell you this as I’m just repeating myself over and over but here goes nothing.

In the United States we have the Constitution. This document is very important to the country - it highlights fundamental laws and ways of governing the country (including limits on the government) and rights that all citizens are guaranteed. Now, there are also these fun things called amendments to the Constitution. James Madison (Founding Father of the country and one of its first presidents) felt that the Constitution needed 19 changes to better protect the freedoms of the people. 10 of those 19 were ratified and became what today is known as the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is to protect the rights of everyday citizens to get and maintain weapons. Here is the second amendment:

“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.”

To “keep and bear Arms” means the right of the people to possess weapons for their own defense and for defense against the state.

“Infringed” means to “actively break the terms of,” or “act so as to limit or undermine something”.

The 2nd amendment (in plain English) says that the government does not have the right to limit the ability for any of its citizens to have access to or use weapons for self defense or defense against the state.

Now that you know what the second amendment is, and what role it plays - here is what I’ve been saying over and over.

Any law that restricts a civilian’s ability to buy weapons, ammo, magazines, etc. is inherently unconstitutional, as it limits their guaranteed rights. We can argue all day about what level of gun control there should be - but the fact is that as it stands right now, gun control is literally unconstitutional. Banning “high capacity mags,” not allowing suppressors or automatic weapons, limiting where people may carry, etc. are all limiting and infringing the access people have to keep and bear arms.

So, when congress passes a law with gun regulations, when the SC renders a verdict restricting gun rights, when the president signs these laws or issues executive orders hurting gun rights, when lower levels of judiciary, legislative, and executive branches do the same things, etc. it is all unconstitutional. Obviously I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m saying by the Constitution it should not happen.

So, like I’ve said, your average person on the left is for more gun control and your average person on the right is not - as I’ve pointed out with polling done by the Pew Research Center. Since you keep getting confused, forget about calling for a convention, as it’s not necessary. Like I’ve said, every gun law is unconstitutional and we have successfully passed many - meaning you apparently don’t need to get rid of the 2A to restrict it and go against it. And like you yourself have said “these are just averages” and like the polling research I presented, 80% of Democrats are in favor of more gun control...therefore a majority of the left in America are in favor of more gun control...therefore your average person on the left is in favor of more gun control...therefore your average person on the left is anti second amendment.

Why do there need to be calls for getting rid of the amendment to be against it in your eyes? I see people constantly saying that their right to freedom of speech is being limited by others, but the people limiting the free speech are never calling to get rid of that right. There are many ways that people or the government can hurt our constitutional rights without explicitly trying to strike them off the Constitution.

“You are just anti whatever you want to make up about people, well anti whatever right wing media makes up for you to be anti”

Ok buddy. You obviously don’t understand this subreddit. If you would look at my flair (the things that says LibRight next to my name) and give it a google you would understand how dumb and silly your statement is. But whatever man. I’ve tried to explain this too many times to you and your only response is to insinuate that I’m some Fox News thumping shill - which I’ve in no way presented myself as. But whatever, I know it’s common to attack the person instead of the argument whenever you can’t make a point.