would democrats accept this 2A compromise

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.

indeed, Dems won't be happy until only crooks have guns

And some people won't be happy until everyone has a gun.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This still makes it possible for people in states with stricter gun control laws to travel to states where laws are less strict, purchase higher capacity weapons, and go back home. Unless there's going to be law enforcement checking vehicles at every entry point in every state and also performing rigorous checks of every home for illegal weapons, this isn't much of a compromise.

indeed, Dems won't be happy until only crooks have guns

And some people won't be happy until everyone has a gun.

nobody wants everyone to have a gun....well, maybe gun manufacturers (and we shouldn't really care what they think), but certainly not guns rights advocates

Then why do gun nuts oppose ending loopholes in current background checks or requiring people get a license showing they at least know how to competently handle a gun unless it's because no one should be denied having a gun?

But I will agree that the NRA cares more about what gun manufacturers want than what gun users want.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dems are gonna be shocked when gun violence doesnt go down because rifles murders are like 400 per year.

They aren’t going to be shocked, if anything they want murder rates to go up so that they have further “excuses” to restrict rights.

Most courts have ruled there is no right to own semi automatics/assault rifles/military style weapons.  You are trying to falsely create a narrative by suggesting otherwise, liar.

That's really a moot point, because the US Constitution plainly states that there is. So these "courts" are issuing rulings that are blatantly incongruous with the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold.

False. All the Constitution mentions is 'arms.'  What the definition of 'arms' is is up to the Supreme Court to determine guided by precedent and the meaning of the word at the time of the writing of the Constitution.  All 'arms' meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution was the flintlock and the musket along with immobile canons.  There is no reason to believe whatsoever that the Authors of the Constitution meant for semi automatic... weapons to have Constitutional protection and, based on precedent, the Supreme Court has already ruled that automatic weapons can be banned.

Is it also up to them to determine what forms of speech the 1st amendment can apply to? Does free speech not exist on television or the internet because they didn't exist in 1787?

And is the Air Force unconstitutional because the Constitution only mentions the Army and the Navy?