The only "well regulated militia"

[jimmy the one]

32. gun control makes marginal improvements

k ...which requires, as previously discussed, tying militia membership to the right to own guns. Of course this is ridiculous; if I'm in an organized militia then the government will ISSUE ME a rifle!

I am not talking about you or now, I am referring to the original intent of the 2ndA in 1791.
By the way, in 1792 militia gatherings the govt did not issue firearms to the militia, it was incumbent upon the member to supply & bring a firearm, powder & ball. Only 45% of militia members had a firearm, 1803 militia census.

k: So if a mere 38,875 people had voted the other way the election goes 258-273 and we have President Clinton..

Conventional wisdom put the onus on hillary for not visiting wisconsin and michigan near election, while wasting time in arizona. As well as voter apathy. You are the first one I have heard link gun control efforts for hillary's loss.

k: while {your} political priorities aren't doing a thing to stop either crime or the root causes of crime, the Republicans that are in power because of your political priorities have managed to kill more people in 18 months from Covid than all the people murdered with rifles in the the US since 1900.

No idea what you are driving at. And correlation does not prove causation.
Crime cannot be stopped, it can only be hindered and reduced (nationally). Background checks, ammo limits, waiting periods, one gun/month laws generally had marginal reducing effects on violent crime. A marginal improvement is about all we can expect to get, from a rampant gun culture based upon a 230 year old ambiguously worded 2ndA, and the subversion which scalia perpetrated.

k: 5% of gun-related murders are done with rifles. All rifles. ALL RIFLES. The "assault weapons" you want to ban are a subset of "all rifles"

I know, I agree. But when used for mass shootings they can wreak awful carnage. The more they become, the more they will. Assault rifles also are not what was intended to be allowed in 1791 - predominantly single shot musquettes. Back then attached bayonets were not allowed in most towns during peacetime, that was a restriction for the time. Founding fathers could never have foreseen such sophisticated firearms as exist today, what with hermetically sealed gunpowder as well. A person can defend their homes for most all intents and purposes with one single shot rifle or handgun, or two or three. Do not need overkill assault rifle.

k: REPUBLICANS are in charge. And why are they in charge?... perhaps it's because when gun-control advocates make up shit that sounds good to the non-gun-owning liberal base, the gun-owners can see through the misinformation.

Personally I do not think gun control makes much difference in politics, at least not decisively as you suggest. And of course correlation does not prove causation.
I will point out a correlation: violent crime rates and gun crime rates fell about 35% under clinton from 1992 - 2000, then leveled out under bush. During that same time period 1992 - 2000, the gun ownership rate also fell about 35%, from approx 35% personal gun ownership rate to 25% (corroborated by pew, gallup, gss, cbs) as well as 'gun in home' rates; Correlation does not prove causation but it does not disprove it either. It might hold it might not.
Less gun ownership rates = less violent crime rate = a correlation, 1992 - 2000.
(clinton crime initiative enacted 1993, first data 1994 also likely contributed to crime rate decline, which began in 1992 data).