A well regulated road system, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to drive, shall not be infringed.

Does testing, licensing, registration, insurance, seat belts, speed limits, one way signs, no open alcoholic beverages, in the Us driving in the forward position on the right hand side of the road infringe on your right to drive? What is the right to drive? However we please and at any speed, drunk or sober? That side of the road or this? Untested? Unregulated? Unlicensed? Free for all highways? How about parking meters, do they infringe on the right to drive? Toll booths?

The no gun-control argument is ludicrous. As much as confiscate guns. Restrictions for public safety and the common good are sane and wise. Like for a vehicle.

You are making a mistake by mixing rights and privileges. The Constitution confers the rights. Driving a car isn't one of them. It is a privelege. When the Constitution was written it would have been a horse drawn carriage. Guns however were deliberately mentioned. As motorized vehicles became the norm every one had the right to own one. As the number increased and roads were created created to handle the traffic it became obvious for safety that laws regulating the use on public roads were needed. States required license plates in order to help defray the cost and aid law enforcement to identify a particular vehicle. That is the difference between rights and privileges. You have the right to own a car but it is a privelege to drive one on roads. NY is being sued by the ACLJ for its gun laws. It is expected to end up in SCOTUS. It was selected because it is the most restrictive state about guns. Keep in mind that 98.4% of mass shootings take place in gun free zones. That gives a loud and clear message.

Historically, until GCA '68, gun laws were considered to be the the purview of the states. The Founders, (being considerably smarter than today's crop of brainless shitheads infesting Congress,) realized that different localities have different requirements. Laws that make good sense in NYC might be the height of stupidity and completely unnecessary in Boise, ID. This is why some restrictive gun laws have been allowed to stand; because in some places they make sense and in some places they are stupid and useless.
Well regulated, for the millionth time, in the 18th Century referred not to government control, but to something that functioned properly. In the case of the militia, which most US citizens are members of whether they like it or not, the requirements for this are best determined at the local level. This is why I oppose national reciprocity instead of the discretion of the individual state like we have now. As soon as Federal apparatchiks get their grubby little dickskinners on the concept, it will become a nightmare of regulation and restriction, because that's what bureaucrats do. The most restrictive carry laws from the most restrictive jurisdictions will become national law.
The majority of our gun crime comes from a very small number of locations. The states with the highest murder rates are usually that way because they contain cities run by Liberal Democrats where most of the murders occur. Alabama has a very high murder rate, as does Louisiana. Take Birmingham and New Orleans out of the equation and both states have a murder rate comparable to most of Europe. My own state of Georgia, once you remove Atlanta, Savannah and Macon from the picture, has a murder rate of less than 1:100,000, which is basically the same as the UK. Rural Georgia is one of the most heavily armed parts of the country and gun crimes are fairly rare, probably due to the paucity of unarmed victims.
More than 75% of the murders in this country occur in less than ten percent of it's 3142 counties. In 54% of these counties, NO murders occurred last year. Another nearly 40% of these counties had only a small number of murders. The "gun crime epidemic" in this country is confined to a few cities, with Democratic Administrations and large numbers of black males between the ages of 15 and 30, who, according to statistics published by Eric Holder's Department of Justice, comprise about 4 or 5 percent of the population and commit nearly half the murders. By contrast, black males in this age group who do not live in these cities are no more likely than anyone else to commit murders. Nearly half of the murders and nearly 80% of violent crime in general is committed by urban black males 15-30 who live in a few cities. White males in this age and geographical demographic constitute about 28% of the population and commit about 25% of the crimes. Asian males are one or two percent, and their crime rate is statistically non-existent. The rest of the crimes are committed largely by young Hispanic males who also, incidentally, commit crimes out of proportion to their percentile representation in the general population.

U will take issue with one point that you made and may have missed its and your intent: "Well regulated, for the millionth time, in the 18th Century referred not to government control, but to something that functioned properly. In the case of the militia, which most US citizens are members of whether they like it or not, the requirements for this are best determined at the local level. This is why I oppose national reciprocity instead of the discretion of the individual state like we have now. As soon as Federal apparatchiks get their grubby little dickskinners on the concept, it will become a nightmare of regulation and restriction, because that's what bureaucrats do. The most restrictive carry laws from the most restrictive jurisdictions will become national law." This an absurd mumbo-jumbo of contradictory facts, to me. Like this totally and bizarre statement, at least to me and needs splaining, Lucy: "In the case of the militia, which most US citizens are members of whether they like it or not, the requirements for this are best determined at the local level." And well-regulated?