You are wrong on both accounts. 1. That's exactly what it was intended to do. Prevent large urban centers from having an unfair geographical advantage in controlling America's destiny. Works perfectly. 2. Fake news. Both Britain and Australia have had numerous mass killings since confiscating guns from their citizens. Australia alone has had 13 since the first 1996 confiscation. Considering their tiny populaces compared to America the results should be alarming to anyone. Australia now has an enormous crime underworld rivalling Chicago and NY mafia networks of the late 20th century. British Cub Scouts face a 4 year prison term if caught with a pocket knife in their pocket. In Britain 60% of all home burglaries occur WHILE THE RESIDENTS ARE IN THE HOME, compared to 13% in America (where homeowners are allowed to defend themselves). In America, gun violence is now roughly 50% of what it was a few decades ago, DUE TO A 100% INCREASE in the number of guns owned by citizens. I strongly encourage you to seek asylum in either one of these freedom-less nanny states, as you don't seem to be made of the stuff it takes to enjoy life as a free man.
And I strongly suggest you learn what a "fact" its - it will help you decipher reality better. 1. Yes, true, the Electoral College was indeed designed to be a buffer to direct democracy, BUT NOT to elect the person with fewer votes. That's not why the founders risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for. (Look it up, or better yet, read one of the two books I have written about the presidency.) 2. The Australia law actually has been profoundly successful. See "facts" above. To wit, "So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness." Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ited-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.73c541acf649 We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why. (We aren't Australia)
Reading our constitution makes me proud to be an American. For the most part, it was written to protect individuals from each other that have different beliefs, and to protect our individual rights. It was also written to protect individuals from abuse by our own government, with two exceptions. The 18th amendment forced “some” people’s beliefs on everyone. They did not drink alcohol because it may cause harm and problems, so no one should drink alcohol. It was later repelled. The reason I bring this up is the same faulting mentality is being used by those with different beliefs who want to repel the second amendment. I am not saying we do not need to regulate firearms, we do regulate alcohol to limit problems. But those that want to abolish firearms are acting like the little old ladies trying to force their beliefs on everyone. Grow up. The next exception ticks me off. The 16th amendment gave congress virtually unlimited power to levy taxes, with little to no accountability on how it is spent. This is taxation without representation. This problem of taxation without representation is not limited to the Federal Govt. It is also being abused on the state and local levels. We have three levels of government, all increasing our taxes, license fees, and permit fees while competing for the little money individuals have remaining. This process is not sustainable. How do we fix this problem? I do not have a clue. The very people that need to fix this problem are the very same people that benefit the most from it. They have no incentive to create a fair and just tax system, or, to spend our money wisely. I believe this tax system is also the cause of the corruption within our government, on all levels.
