This might be the single worst argument against democracy I've ever seen. Try "tyranny of the majority" instead if you want to argue against democracy and make the point on why America is a republic.

Then why even have rules right.  Since people do not follow rules we should just get rid of them and let people do what they want and let GOD sort them out.  Or could it be that we have rules because they set the standard what our society is willing to tolerate and set defined penalties for breaking those rules.  So yes, teens can kill people texting while driving.  They might not actually die but if caught doing this act, we have laws to punish them and set an example.  There isn't one law today that anyone has to follow.  We as a society put those laws, rules and regulations in place to set the standard and penalty for disobeying the laws.

For people who want to have a deadly weapon, not having standards, Laws and regulations that put the onus and responsibility of possessing a weapon of destruction on those individuals really does sound silly.  

1.  Various options, possibly an equivalent to the institutions that issue Driver's Licenses and oversee auto insurance.  

2.  If you read one thing as a completely different thing, then your literacy is suspect.  

3. I'm not seeing evidence of rational thinking, though.  

4. That which is freely asserted is freely dismissed.  Pretty much the rest of the free world has figured out how to be free without a Second Amendment.

5.  Good for you.  You're wrong.

No, the shooter is to blame for the crime and NRA are to blame for inciting violence with their rethoric of wanting to arm everyone in society. Just because they are a powerful lobby organization, doesn´t mean they shouldn´t be held accountable for their hateful rethoric, not acknowledging that there might be some problems with such an unregulated market. And mostly, politicians should be to blame for taking the money.

Look, I´m from Sweden and an American is almost five times as likely in being killed by homicide than a Swedish person and close to 19 (!) times as likely as being killed by a shooting compared to a Swede. There are ofcourse other factors that matter aswell, but gun regulation is a large part of it.

You need to be less vague than that. 

A few questions to ponder:

1. What constitutes a given society?

2. Where does the state gain it's authority to manage society?

3. Who controls the current political process? Is it "society as a whole?"

4. Why are billionaires and corporations so keen on gun control?

5. Should they have this disproportionate social power?

6. Is the United States of America democratic?

7. Which forms of democracy best represent the social interests and values of most people?

The rest of your post was liberal-democratic dogma which sounds nice on paper, but which is often used by the powerful to deprive the powerless of autonomy.

I don't even believe in "natural" rights. All rights are determined intersubjectively and in the United States we've intersubjectively determined that common gun ownership enhances our abilities to attain life and happiness. 

The state is the protector of privilege not the regulator. So what is my solution? Eliminate that which enforces social alienation through centralized violence -- the state and the capitalist class which controls it. That combined with lifting the poor out of poverty eliminates the bulk of violence in this country which is caused by those so desperate that they join the illegalized drug trade.

That's true, at least on the surface level.

How can it be the fault of the car if someone is texting? Are you, for example, in favor of unlimited speeds everywhere in society, like small neighbourhoods with lots of kids running around? Are you in favor of having to have a drivers license in order to manouver a vehicle, like a car or, say an airplane, bus, train etc? Or are you for not regulating anything?

Drunk driving causes as many homicides as guns in the USA. And if anything it's worse because most drunk driving is late at night/early in the morning, and most gun deaths in the USA are gang vs. gang.

The reason the West is free is because the USA has guns.

Those are all interesting questions but not really that relevant to your statement. You don´t have a natural "right" to bear any weapon you want. If you would form you own country you could set up any rule you want, but if you choose to live in the society you are a part of you either abide by the rules or work towards changing them.

Your first three questions are quite easily answered by the constitution of any given country. That is the decision of a majority of the people for the ground rules of what they call "society".

There are a lot of billionares and millionares (for example the current president of the US, most of the GOP and even some democrats) that are in favor of not having any more regulations on gun ownership. Some companies have gone out to put their own sanctions on NRA because of public preassure, not because they are "kind hearted". It´s a very important part of capitalism, that the consumers can affect companies this way.

Regarding number five, I am strongly opposed to having any private interests other than the citizens themselves supporting democracy financially. And this problem is not unique to the US, just more emphasized than in many other countries.

Number six is a tricky one since it depends on what you mean. The way the system is handled with Gerry mandering, the system of electoral votes and money in politics, I would say it has major flaws, but it is the system the US citizens have and a system that has brought major changes through the years like social security, medicare, medicaid, the emancipation of slaves, the end of institutionalized segregation and so on. It is far from perfect but it has a lot of power and the people can change it if they work for it hard enough.

And I agree with you that there are no "natural rights" but the "unalienable rights" mentioned are part of a social contract between the people and their government. And how can you claim that the state is the protector of privilege and not the regulator of it if you don´t believe in natural rights? That doesn´t add up at all. And the system you describe will ultimately always lead to oppression of minorities, free speeach and violence since there is no force governed by the people that protects the people against large private interests. You would only replace a flawed system with a catastrophic one.

Is it legal to be drunk and drive?