What is the 2nd Amendment really for?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

indeed, Protestants, Agnostics, Sikhs and Jews are the only people that should be allowed to own firearms.

That's the problem with originalist interpretations of the Constitution, absolutely no way of dealing with things not around  at the time it was written.  What about the Bahais? What about Scientologists?  Can you imagine how much different Pulp Fiction would have been if John Travolta hadn't been able to star in it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's weird that on this left leaning political message board, gun rights peoples destroy gun control peoples every time.  Sure, it helps a lot that we have the facts and logic on our side and all they have is emotion and gut, but these things are much more evenly divided most of the time on the internet.

I'd be tempted to infract that for excessive hyperbole except that's really mod speak for trolling by exaggeration and I don't think you're trolling. I will agree that gun control doesn't appear to be a primary issue for leftists here, probably because our extreme left wing is mostly anarchist-left rather than statist-left. Also, the people who post here generally acknowledge the Second Amendment exists and isn't going to disappear any time soon, so that's not going to be up for debate, just the parameters of what regulations of guns are both desirable and constitutional.

However, considering all the statistics that show that people who don't have guns in the house are less likely to die from guns, that people who live in states with lax concealed carry laws are more likely to die from guns, etc. I'd say the facts and logic generally aren't on the side of the gun cultists.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

If you think the founding fathers wanted more gun control then your crazy.

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Cough Chicago cough

You really ought to do something about that cough before you choke from trying to draw conclusions from isolated situations rather than overall statistics.  The very fact that Chicago stands out from other communities with similar gun regulations ought to be a clear clue that it ain't the gun laws there that have led to the spike in crime there.

All I’m saying is Chicago has the worst gun laws anywhere and they have more shootings then anywhere in America.

Also it’s not just Chicago there is New York,Connecticut,Massachusetts,rhode island. They have tough gun laws and they still have mass shootings but Vermont which is super pro gun never has any shootings.

Mass Shootings?  Those amount to but a tiny fraction of the deaths from guns.  If that's where your focus is, then it is sadly misplaced if your goal to reduce gun deaths.

And you're wording about accidental gun deaths, which make up less than 1% of all accidental deaths.  Seems like misplaced focus too if you want to reduce accidental deaths, no?

No, I want to reduce all gun deaths, not just accidental gun deaths.  My concern is far more with the victims of suicide, domestic violence, and other crime.  That the measures most likely to do that will also cut down on accidental deaths is a bonus, but not an aim.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use. (That would encourage quick reporting of stolen guns and provide for sanctions against those who repeatedly have guns "stolen" from them.)
2) Gun user licensing, requiring that those seeking to use guns show they know how to safely handle the carrying, storage, and use of their gun.
3) Background checks on not merely all gun sales, but all gun owners.
4) A level of taxation on guns sufficient to cover their societal costs.
5) Elimination (or at least a considerable reduction) of concealed carry, since statistics show that concealed carry laws make society less safe, not more.

The above would be a bit of a burden, but none of those would run afoul of the 2nd amendment. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More people die per capita from gun deaths in states with concealed carry.  It is debatable the specific reasons for the correlation as well how important each factor is. However, they include the facts that having guns close at hand makes them more readily to be used in a moment of anger, that guns kept in cars by those with concealed carry permits are likelier to be stolen, and that people predisposed to be fearful are more likely to lash out mistakenly.  For me, the exact reason for the correlation is unimportant;  it is sufficient that the link between concealed carry and more deaths can be shown and that concealed carry is not needed for any sort of militia use. Open carry is more than sufficient for those purposes.

Increased taxes would pay for the costs that gun cultists impose on society and would serve as a discouragement for people to treat gun ownership as a status symbol instead of as the serious responsibility that it is. To borrow a phrase, I'd like to see gun ownership be "legal, safe, and rare".  Unless one gets into collecting them as a hobby, I can't see why anyone might need more than four firearms yet the average gun owner has around 10 these days, a figure which has more than doubled in the past two decades.

(The four are I can see a reasonable need for are a pistol for self-defense/target shooting, and a shotgun, light-caliber, and heavy-caliber rifle for different forms of hunting. Going beyond that is an excess which as far I can see only serves to make it easier for thieves to repurpose guns for criminal use. Still, if people want to pay for the excess, I see no reason to ban people being foolishly excessive.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More people die per capita from gun deaths in states with concealed carry.  It is debatable the specific reasons for the correlation as well how important each factor is. However, they include the facts that having guns close at hand makes them more readily to be used in a moment of anger, that guns kept in cars by those with concealed carry permits are likelier to be stolen, and that people predisposed to be fearful are more likely to lash out mistakenly.  For me, the exact reason for the correlation is unimportant;  it is sufficient that the link between concealed carry and more deaths can be shown and that concealed carry is not needed for any sort of militia use. Open carry is more than sufficient for those purposes.

Increased taxes would pay for the costs that gun cultists impose on society and would serve as a discouragement for people to treat gun ownership as a status symbol instead of as the serious responsibility that it is. To borrow a phrase, I'd like to see gun ownership be "legal, safe, and rare".  Unless one gets into collecting them as a hobby, I can't see why anyone might need more than four firearms yet the average gun owner has around 10 these days, a figure which has more than doubled in the past two decades.

(The four are I can see a reasonable need for are a pistol for self-defense/target shooting, and a shotgun, light-caliber, and heavy-caliber rifle for different forms of hunting. Going beyond that is an excess which as far I can see only serves to make it easier for thieves to repurpose guns for criminal use. Still, if people want to pay for the excess, I see no reason to ban people being foolishly excessive.)

So you’re saying that people should be allowed to only have 4 guns?

Clearly you can't read if you think that's what I was saying.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you think gun control is synonymous with gun confiscation, they you're crazy.

Let me be specific as to the measures I seek,
1) Complete gun registration. Like motor vehicles, every gun should have a title and be registered to a specific owner, who would be held legally liable for any ill results of its use.

Hawaii, Which Registers Guns and Medical Marijuana Users, Starts Disarming Patients

A little disingenuous in that you fail to note that Hawaii is enforcing Federal law here, which says that marijuana use for any reason makes it illegal to own a gun. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment worshipping Republican Congress can do something about that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll happily support confiscation of guns from people who aren't legally able to buy them in the first place. That's just common sense in my opinion. What I am opposed to is making ridiculous things--such as the use of medical marijuana--a bar to gun ownership in the first place.

Besides, if it ever got to the point where it would be politically possible to take "an honest man's gun", the second amendment wouldn't be a bar, but at most a speed bump. That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum. Hence, basing policy on impossible paranoia is ridiculous.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

Well there is zero chance Iran will bomb Berlin in my lifetime. 😀

More seriously, I probably do see this somewhat differently because I live in a state where it's far likelier the General Assembly would vote to give people subject to domestic violence restraining orders the right to conceal carry because they hadn't yet been convicted of a crime than it would vote to even just tighten up the gun show loophole.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

Well there is zero chance Iran will bomb Berlin in my lifetime. 😀

More seriously, I probably do see this somewhat differently because I live in a state where it's far likelier the General Assembly would vote to give people subject to domestic violence restraining orders the right to conceal carry because they hadn't yet been convicted of a crime than it would vote to even just tighten up the gun show loophole.

I honestly don’t get why you want facts about the founding fathers and the second amendment.

Perhaps because facts matter far more than mere opinion?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That said, there's zero chance of widespread gun confiscation in this country in not only our lifetimes, but that of the grandchildren of the youngest whippersnappers on this forum.

that's easy to say from the sidelines.  It's like a guy in Berlin telling a lady in Tel Aviv that she shouldn't worry about Iran getting the bomb, there is zero chance they'd use in your life time.

You might think them confiscating guns in Hawaii is an outlier, others might consider what gun control nuts are thinking in Sacramento (when they aren't groping an intern), Albany or Springfield when they see what Honolulu is doing.

Well there is zero chance Iran will bomb Berlin in my lifetime. 😀

More seriously, I probably do see this somewhat differently because I live in a state where it's far likelier the General Assembly would vote to give people subject to domestic violence restraining orders the right to conceal carry because they hadn't yet been convicted of a crime than it would vote to even just tighten up the gun show loophole.

I honestly don’t get why you want facts about the founding fathers and the second amendment.

Perhaps because facts matter far more than mere opinion?

Mount Vernon is Mount Vernon they don’t make up crap about general Washington,they only give facts.

In your opinion.

We know certain facts about Washington.

He continued to attend Christian services till the end of his life, however late in life he avoided services where communion would be offered and did not partake of communion.

His writings and speech include multiple references to Religion and Morality but they never involve an unambiguous endorsement of Christianity.

Despite knowing he was on his deathbed, he did not seek to have a clergyman of any sort brought in.   His final words concerned the disposition of his mortal body, not of his soul.

What we make out of these facts is opinion and I fairly confident of the one I have.