Very true, thank you.
Hmm, maybe nothing changes on a large enough scale because human nature is too dependant on instant gratification/change. Theres a large percent of people in America that cant even go 1 day without polluting their own bodies with cigarettes, let alone not litter, use fossil fuels, or let CFCs into the atmosphere to save a few minutes at work. (Not judging smokers, just an example)

I guess its just that people want easier answers? Not just to be told that theyre living pollution-machines and to stop, because that wont help. We need something smaller to focus on, that will be easier to change!
Thanks again for opening my mind a bit! You have restored my faith in people who study these things!

I feel that its the motive in a large percent of violent crimes, coming in behind bad domestic relationships and drugs. Which sometimes also boils down to lack of money to feed starving babies, or drug habits. Turns some women into prostitutes and some men into criminals. Vice versa as well of course.
I think youre very right about the citizenry. Hasnt it always been the governments job to step in, in situations where the population has no idea whats good for the security/well-being of our country though? For example, the same reasons you cant sell cigarettes to minors, or other certain substances at all?
Also, thank you for all the great input on the topic.

The who is redundant in this post. Judging by your curiosity, I'm guessing you most likely already know a few examples.

I think people who do not own firearms fail to realize how well regulated firearms already are. You are tied to that firearm the second you buy it. If you sell it privately, you better have the persons ID and CCW photocopied and put away. If they were to commit a crime, the police will be at YOUR doorstep. The only reason to "register" any further than is already required, especially with a police station, would be to compile a single list of targets for gun confiscation.. Which lord knows would kill potentially millions of innocent people standing up for their right to equally protect their families. For what? To TRY to stop a couple crazy people per year from killing a few people people? Thats completely asinine. 2019 was the worst year for mass shootings in history, and 15,000 people died. Thats 5 TIMES less than the lowest amount of opioid deaths we've had in one year. Thats even FAR LESS than the number who die from voluntarily breathing in smoke annually...
Plus, I know I dont want my name on a list telling a militia ran by tyrants where my family lives, so they can bust in threatening our lives with guns if we dont give ours up.. Would you sit back and watch with a peaceful mind as the unconstitutional law that you fought for kills your neighbors, and many other families alike in every state across the country? What will that do to the millions of children that will flood foster homes? Will they put a bullet in the kids too? Who knows. Will you trust a government that proved 100% that they will murder a mass amount of tax paying citizens at a moments notice if you dont bend over? All because of a few crazy people.

Violence solves more issues only because most individuals value their life over beliefs. If someone comes to your home, puts a gun to your head and says "leave", youre going to do it, unless you have a viable way to defend against it. Hence violence solving the weilders issues of you being in his new house. Pretty much exactly as we did to the indians, the difference being that the natives provoked it.
All in all, Im not sure you understood my question completely in text. When you speak of liberty, I assume youre talking about freedom from an opressive government, which is covered in a few other amendments. My question was: If politicians that are SWORN to uphold the constitution, and protect it at all costs, are talking about infringing it in their campaigns.. Why arent they booted right out of the election?

There will always be criminals as long as there is poverty. Laws will not change their minds. Seeing as how everything criminals do is already illegal, what will taking the right of innocent individuals do? Ensure that noone in America can defend themselves against a future criminal armed with an "illegal" firearm? Plus the fact that theyll go to prison for life for having a "devils firearm" anyhow, will give them all the more reason to pull the trigger.

But I didnt post to discuss whether or not criminals will follow laws.. Just want to know how the government doesnt see it as a threat to national security, or how it is even possible that someone who pretty much says "I plan to commit tyranny" can be considered to run the country...? One of them gets voted in, next thing you know, we will have no firearms, then they will want to repeal amendments that mean more to the entire population, such as the right to liberty, and we will not be able to defend against it.

Very true. It can always be narrowed down to other contributing factors. Such things as predators migrating, food sources becoming unavailable, mutating species of bacteria/parasites, species getting thrown in foreign ecosystems, adapting to new food sources that are less rapidly renewable (full grown elms), the weather, etc.. It just seems to me that it all boils down to things humans have done.
Forests have higher biodiversity than most other biomes. No other creatures can wipe out entire forests completely without giving back any of the nutrients to the earth, except us. Then we cover it all up with a parking lot to ensure none of it will ever grow back.

Any one politician who has said that the constitution is outdated, or that the already existing base amendments need changed, or removed.