-Every other developed country besides the United States has affordable universal healthcare in some fashion. They have differing degrees of government involvement in the process along with private insurance to various degrees in some countries. 
-we spend 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare. every other developed country spends not much more than ten percent. if we ran healthcare like any of them, the difference amounts to over a trillion dollars a year. that’s the equivalent of cutting people’s income taxes in half. you can also look at the break down per capita and come to the same conclusions as bernie always does.
-Highlighting the need for reform: medicare and other government healthcare in the United States are running out of money, despite the common thinking that our payroll and other income taxes will pay for it all.  The problem is so big, that healthcare is the only thing that could potentially bankrupt the country. The debt clock shows that our current GDP and debt is around 20 trillion, but future unfunded liability from healthcare is around 120 trillion. 
http://www.usadebtclock.com/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/barack-obama/obama-says-medicare-and-medicaid-are-largest-defic/
http://memepoliceman.com/social-security-medicare/
-There is speculation on what will happen when Medicare runs out of sufficient money to pay its bills. We might reform the system, put it on our debt, or print money to pay for it. 
-before obamacare, a commonly cited statistic was that over forty five thousand people died a year without healthcare. after obamacare, that number fell. the exact number is disputed by some, but the consensus is that the number is tens of thousands. for instance, there is no shortage of stories of insurance companies that deny or battle coverage while someone is dying of cancer.  
http://www.pnhp.org/mortality
-Despite paying more than other countries, we have significantly worse health outcomes compared to them, even beyond high death rates. 
Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
​-The current healthcare industry causes people to go bankrupt. One in four of your grandparents will go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in this country.  Before Obamacare, half of bankruptcies were healthcare related. If an insurance company fights to pay for your cancer care, for instance, you will face not just the prospects of death, but won’t receive any government assistance until you’re lifetime saving from hard work, become depleted. 
-The primary way these countries save money is by negotiating and regulating costs (such as drug costs) but some also take out the insurance middleman to reduce administrative costs. 
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries
​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M
-This article does a great job breaking down costs that need addressed in a universal plan. 
https://www.theweek.com/articles/792893/how-pay-medicareforall?fbclid=IwAR1Rds6oKvUJHSo64ApfRcf1Wq5UqKZTp6Nw6QJYwI9RD_mDOhOvQumiQ-s
-Medicare spends twenty percent less than insurance for any given procedure, and Medicaid reimburses a third less than Medicare. (consider the bigger picture. if we spent a third less than we do now overall, we would be much closer to other countries spending rates)
-the non-partisan committee for a responsible federal budget gives some examples of reforming Medicare, without cutting benefits, where major savings could be established and medicare become sustainable 
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-reduce-medicare-spending-without-cutting-benefits
-Insurance companies spend thirty percent on the dollar on profit and administrative costs, while Medicare spends only three percent on administration.  For every doctor, it is not uncommon to see two staff people just to take care of billing. There is also the marketing and legal departments, other issues that are redundant among insurance companies that run up administrative costs. 
“We have 900 billing clerks at Duke (medical system, 900 bed hospital). I’m not sure we have a nurse per bed, but we have a billing clerk per bed… it’s obscene.” Reinhardt, Congressional Hearing on Healthcare Reform.
-The main reason we spend so much is because the healthcare industry charges so much for any given procedure.  The last link lists some things that are not the main problem that are commonly cited, as is also listed later on this page. 
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/16357790/health-care-prices-problem
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/upshot/united-states-health-care-resembles-rest-of-world.html
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180407/NEWS/180409939 
-Hospitals are a bigger bad actor than insurance companies because they are prone to excessively charging simply because they can.
-Doctors and other healthcare professionals salaries are included to some extent in the excess.  There is an artificial restriction on the supply of doctors and they earn significantly more than their counterparts in other countries.  There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people — well below below the OECD average of 3.1.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-salaries-pay-disparities-000557
-A, or ‘the’, major problem we have five percent of patients that cause half our healthcare expenses. this could potentially be regulated by creating a “high risk” category in the industry, where reimbursement is lower. If we reduced that category of expense by half, we should reduce the overall cost of healthcare by a quarter. (think of the GDP numbers, instead of 18 percent, we’d be closer to other countries) Think of the bigger picture- the average that is spent on each of those patients is $40,000 per year. You could hire a doctor to take car of just five of them and his salary would be paid for.  Trying to manage care like that is easier said than done though. So what happens is we end up having the healthcare industry milk each procedure and charge too much overall.   
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/september/8-facts-that-explain-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-american-health-care
-half of people get their insurance through their jobs. a lot of people are satisfied, but not all of them. and there is a general awareness of the waste involved.  
-here is a public option plan that could cover anyone wanting to join and includes allowing employers to join. this plan, Americare, achieves savings through all the means mentioned above and makes healthcare universal and affordable.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/this-old-bill-could-be-the-secret-to-affordable-universal-health-care/ar-BBDmswj?li=BBnbfcN&srcref=rss
-here is a dude proposing public options through expanding medicaid and medicare. this sort of pragmatism hasn’t been in the media a lot in recent years, but it’s slowly becoming more mainstream. the second link illustrates some of the politically infeasible aspects of trying to get to single payer. the last link argues for a medicaid public option.  
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04/27/the-case-against-single-payer/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/bernie-sanders-single-payer-universal-coverage
-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/08/02/the-health-202-medicare-for-all-is-the-dream-medicaid-for-more-could-be-the-reality/5b61d4ed1b326b0207955ea2/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d9412cfb413d
https://prospect.org/article/buying-medicaid-viable-path-universal-coverage​
-the above link shows a slight majority of americans support universal care. there is an even higher support when you raise the proposition that it can be cheaper that way too. 
-universal care doesn’t have to be single payer or some form of a public option. switzerland does it like obamacare, yet it’s affordable. the main way, as has been discussed, is because of regulating and negotiating with the health industry on costs. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/#64f2ee5a7d74
-would universal care starve research and development, innovation? this article says not, and it says that we spend around a hundred bilion per year on reseach and development. you can see it’s just a fraction of what we spend on our trillions in healthcare. we could double our R and D spending and still cover everyone. 
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/november/does_universal_healt.php
-is the problem malpractice costs? if you count premiums and the amount paid by insurance malpractice companies, and the cost of defensive medicine where doctors use procedures they otherwise wouldn’t to avoid lawsuits, the amount comes out to less than fifty billion dollars. again, this is a small fraction of the trillions we spend in healthcare.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2010/09/07/the-true-cost-of-medical-malpractice-it-may-surprise-you/#12feaa622ff5​
-If we keep health insurance to any extent, we need to make them non-profit organizations. Because health insurance in this country is for profit, they are going to do everything in their power to avoid paying your healthcare. Their main motivation is higher profits, not your well-being. Denying claims is just one clumsy way of saving money though; the main way is by avoiding unhealthy people altogether.  In other countries, any surplus funds are directed towards lowering premiums. Some of the countries have a health system like our current Medicare, where basic dental and eye health along with some luxurious arraignments are only covered through supplemental insurance beyond the government basic coverage. 
-none of the existing proposals are the only methods. some free market types have posited that we could have universal catastrophic care (covering care above a certainly yearly deductible), and something for the poor. the free market would drive down costs for everyone else on non-catastrophic issues that arise. A variation on this theme is they could outlaw non-catastrophic insurance and promote health savings accounts that already exist.  Another variation, if lawmakers wanted to play twisted with poor tax payers, they could give them subsidies before their catastrophic coverage kicks in that they can pocket if they don’t use to discourage overuse. (this wouldn’t be politically popular and has questionable ethics, too)
http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/31/whats-better-medicare-free-market-health-care-system/
-France is rated number one by the world health organization and has an esteemed tort reformed system. (not that this is the major driver of costs)
-a universal system probably wouldn’t be like the VA, especially in the USA. most countries aren’t either. that is where the government is employer of healthcare workers. most universal care proposals only rely on the government at most as an insurer, not as taking over everything.  government as employer like the VA is only the case in the UK, but they don’t have significant problems there anyway. the VA isn’t as bad as it used to be either as most veterans are happy with their care.  


Would the USA suffer in the time we wait to see a Doctor?:
-the idea that we have to wait longer in a single payer system is mostly a myth. according to the Commowealth for most procedures the usa is well below average in wait times. for some specialized care, the usa is towards the top, but still not best.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/universal-healthcare-doesnt-mean-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/
-a libertarian who supports french healthcare: “For a dozen years now I’ve led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife’s native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I’ll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now.”
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/december/reasons-matt-welch-on-french-health-care
-the idea that canadians come here because of wait times is mostly a myth. only 20 for every 18,000 canadians come here on purpose for healthcare. it’s not clear why they choose to do so (maybe there’s a wait issue, maybe they respect the USA more given its reputation for quality in some areas of healthcare), but it’s clear the numbers are miniscule. the atlantic article above does say canada is the only country worse in wait times, so there could be that, so a slight extent. the only reason canadians are worse, though, is because they choose to not fund healthcare as much as other countries or the usa does- a political decision that can be remedied here, and isn’t a problem any where else. 
https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222798/canadians-seeking-medical-care-us-trump-debate
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

What can we conclude on wait times?:
-wait times is mostly a red herring- if we want decent access to doctors we shouldn’t limit the supply of doctors like we have in the usa. let the free market work more in this regard.
-every other developed country is either single payer or has some sort of government involvement majorly. and they all are almost half as costly. most countries to save money by regulating costs. this is probably why specialized care wait times has been hurt some in other countries. but the fact that the usa is not the best in that regards, shows that it can be done better than here and with government involvement that covers everyone. and, all it means is we shouldn’t be too gung ho on over regulating specialized care.
-other countries are like us. to the extent that there are wait times, it’s mostly for people who dont need urgent care. the more urgent your situation, the faster you get seen. that’s how it’s done here too. any delay to the less urgent isn’t significant enough to justify all the good points of single payer or a government involved method.
-there might be some limitation to access if we open up access to doctors to the remaining ten percent of uninsured just by demand going up some, but ten percent more people would not cause a significant shift in outcomes, and most states have less than that uninsured. There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase less than 10%. and, is it all that moral to make your own care better by denying it to someone else? especially when you can just find a way to take care of them that doesn’t really affect you, but you simply choose not to?

thought experiment on the affordability of universal care:
here are some interesting facts that can help someone do thought experiments:
*healthcare costs three and a half trillion in the usa. 
*employers cover half the costs currently 
*state governments spend 600 billion currently on healthcare and the federal government spent 1.1 trillion, and depending on how the system is designed, this money would be available one way or another
*the average income in the usa is around forty or fifty thousand for a person
*the top ten percent of tax payers pay half the income taxes and of course the rest of people pay the rest
*the richest people pay a trillion in taxes and the rest pay another trillion
*almost every other developed country pays half as much as the usa does on healthcare
*healthcare costs ten k in the usa per captia and half that elsewhere
*someone making average income pays about six grand in taxes
using thought experiments, we could assume employers would cover half the costs of healthcare in a universal system, or 1.8 trillion. federal and state government spend about 1.7 trillion. both of these equal 2.5 trillion, and that leaves a trillion in additional revenue that needs to be made up. All we would need to do is increase taxes on that current two trillion in revenue at fifty percent more, producing a trillion in additional revenue.  Someone who pays 6k in taxes will now pay 9k, only three thousand more. If we got overall spending down to the level of the rest of the world at half the cost, current revenue by governments and businesses would be sufficient and no increase would be needed.  If we cut overall spending by a quarter, taxes would increase a small amount. 3.5 trillion * .25 = 2.7 trillion. or in other words taxes would only go up ten percent for people, or 600 dollars for an average income person. If we kept them paying obamacare premium numbers, their cost would be 450 per month, which is not that unreasonable for healthcare. ​A political point would be that increasing taxes might not sit right politically with people, but paying a premium if healthcare is done that way, is not that far fetched. 

…………………………
Below is basic information regarding gun control, including science, policy, and law. 

GUN SCIENCE
-where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html
-where there are more guns, there is more murder, across geographic regions from localities and larger. this is also a lot more informing because it a literature review of lots of studies. what’s more, people are shown not to kill with other weopons instead of guns, as is often argued, because if they did there would be no correlation here.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
-women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/
-you are more likely to be murdered if you have a gun, as well as those close to you
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858
-States with more gun control have fewer mass shootings
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/433017-states-with-stricter-gun-control-regulations-have-fewer-mass?fbclid=IwAR0f5l5eW7d-rX4ZoE8R2MOe6VBvLJVrfQQRFwd2b7anlBIM_wgsYYx-uQk
-only around two hundred and fifty killings are done in the name of self defense per year. people like to pretend defense is such a huge thing, but the odds of being murdered is is closer to forty times higher. the odds of being shot and not necessarily killed are upwards of four hundred times higher. 
-we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population
-Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas.
http://justicenotjails.org/police-shootings-gun-problem/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/more-guns-more-dead-cops-study-finds-n409356​
-Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States’ gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries
-High school kids in the USA are eighty two times more likely to be shot than the same kids in other developed countries.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0767
-states with more gun control have fewer youth who die from guns
​https://abc30.com/5396718/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d2d172f8e73cc000164c229&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2T40EdBsGdPZk_VCL8Bi5RDJsNtpF2Ud9NIYiB74njS72zrcqudw1idWY
-it is claimed that most murders are gang related, but this looks to be factually incorrect in the link. even if higher numbers floating around on the internet are true, our murder problem still there if you take out the gang murders from consideration. the numbers here can be arrived at with basic math. 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
-this really isn’t just a mental health problem. we don’t have more people with mental health problems than other countries…. just more people with guns.  the study controls for mental health factors v other factors. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings?fbclid=IwAR3nS6e4bHyakjB-_GkXvWZKNqnWfDfx-LwBVnuAUXewEzgB_7AnMGdgXVk#
-we dont have more crime than the rest of the world, just a lot more people getting shot and killed. you aren’t more likely to be mugged here, for instance, but you are more likely to be mugged and shot in the process. again a gun problem. showing it’s not just deviants being deviants as some suggest but an emphasis on the gun problem.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
-You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that’s not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a picture. 
https://i.imgur.com/skcT8qr.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/71n1u2/gunnongun_homicide_rates_in_oecd_countries_for/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/canada-gun-control-debate/566102/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2018-07-28T09%3A00%3A12
​-people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone. ///  you can do the math yourself. there are 2.5 million assault rifles in circulation. 374 rifle deaths per year. there are 11000 gun homicides. there’s a gun for every person in the usa, 340 million. what’s the math say? 374 divided by 11000 is 3.4 percent of deaths are from rifles. 2.5 milliion divided by 340 milliion is less than a percent. so what does this mean? despite rifles being less than a percent of guns, they cause 3.4 percent of deaths. that is, a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle. most guns that are used in murder are hand guns, but assault rifles are more likely to be chosen over a hand gun when faced with that choice. just like, as an analogy, people are more likely to speed in a sports car, but most cars that speed are not sports cars.  
-people like to throw around number of defensive gun use. the idea is that not all defensive gun uses result in a killing. the most common number in literature is tens of thousands, though the number vary wildly. the only thing is, even if you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than being murdered, you are still more likely to be murdered than someone who doesn’t have a gun. also, a lot of those thousands of defensive uses are not all that critical…. downplaying their significance. and, a lot of those ‘defensive’ uses were actually situations that were people instigating and escalating a situation that wouldn’t otherwise exist, as the link below illustrates. even if we used the higher numbers, is it all that convincing that there are tens of thousands more near murders in a nation with already a globally disproportionate number of murders? it holds true, that we could give lots more people guns, and that may increase defensive use… but it would come at the cost of more murder, too.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/​
-for more on giving an overview of the gun issues, see the following
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts​
-in the usa, the number of murders has overall gone down in recent decades. the thing is, while the number of guns went up, the number of people owning them went down. also, this is just one measure: all the other measure include all the countries and localities where gun levels are proportionate to murder rates.
-for more information on gun policy in the usa and other countries: http://www.gunpolicy.org 
-australia. they enacted major gun reform around twenty years ago after a mass shooting. they bought back a bunch of guns and enacted other gun control. their mass shootings stopped. this almost surely is not an anomloy. their homicides dropped by up to fifty percent. the idea is a lower murder rate came with a lower percent of people owning guns (note that this is different than the specific gun ownership rate because if less people own more guns that could cause the percent owning to go down but the overall rate could be the same). misinformation attempts like to point that overall murder went up slightly after reform, but the rate did not and went down. also, the number of guns have gone up closer to previous level but the gun ownership rate is still lower. it is true that global murder went down, and some of that correlates with australi’s rate… but global reductions arent as drastic s australia’s.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
-japan. they literally have barely any murders, and barely any guns. they have a rigorous process for allowing guns

POLICY AND COMMON SENSE POINTS
-here are some ideas for gun control ranked by experts as more to less effective, with a comparison to how much public support each has. this is important because experts say gun control can be effective, and this shows examples.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur​
-i read a story about a boy who got a gun out of his house to shoot some bullies who followed him home. they were challenging him. he admits he wouldn’t have did this if he didn’t have access to a gun. ive seen with my own eyes an adult do in a pretty exactly the same situation… it’s not just limited to kids. remember again that men are five times more likely to kill their significant other if they have a gun. guns cause escalation when the situation otherwise wouldn’t. a gun is critical.
-the world isn’t magically split into those who will stop at nothing to get a gun and those who aren’t. preventing some from being allowed a gun will sometimes prevent them from getting one. when they go off on their significant other or get into a tussle, as the examples and trends show…. they are less likely to kill someone.
-40% of gun sales involve no background check. 90% of people support background checks. 70% of the NRA does. most people want better gun control. congress isn’t doing anything, it stands to reason, because they are beholden to the gun lobby.
-barely anyone is hard core per the second amendment. everyone has limits. no machine guns, no grenade launcher, some like the current set up. the thing is, the current set up is arbitrary, there is nothing magical about it.
-the idea of rigid approach to gun control is atypical from a historical perspective as shown in the following section, and a world wide perspective. barely any other countries enshrine such fundamental rights to gun, and these countries aren’t those who we’d otherwise want to emulate or be compared to. people just cling to what they have been taught. before the NRA got involved politically, most people wanted to ban hand guns in the recent century.
-the best approach forward is to enact the ideas in the examples link from experts. then, gradually buy back guns like australia did and follow some of their lead on other gun control. eventually we can start treating guns as a privilege instead of a right. we can be like japan and then only allow some people who especially think they need a gun to have one. 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
“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.”
-the phrase “bear arms” historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48302
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a09534fd49a0​
–“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.
-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn’t talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too. 
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856​
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
https://thedoctorweighsin.com/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-guns/
​https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-madison-played-politics-and-gave-us-the-2nd-amendment
-From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun
​-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era: 
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned 
-anyone who didn’t swear loyalty to the state couldn’t have a gun. it’s far fetched to say as today’s conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington’s first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected 
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia 
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns 
-the supreme court historically didn’t touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote “fraud” on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.
-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.
-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn’t generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.
http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm
-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone’s rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
-the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that’s why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental “liberty” interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental ‘liberty’ interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?
-what does “arms” mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed
-you would have to use the word “keep” in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together. 
-the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning…. there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn’t be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. “reasonable suspicion” someone is violent may not be sufficient, “probable cause” may not be. “beyond a reasonable doubt” probably would be, but it’s hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on ‘no fly’ lists for airplanes can still buy a guy- there’s a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed…. if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn’t have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/appeals-court-gun-control-must-meet-toughest-test/

-the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted.  for example, here is the proper context of washington’s first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia… so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a “requisite” condition:
“”Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.””
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
https://gawker.com/the-famous-pro-gun-quotes-the-founding-fathers-never-1567962573
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/03/louie-gohmert/louie-gohmert-says-george-washington-said-free-peo/