Why? Both are guaranteed in the Constitution. Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs.

One is a potentially deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene.

The other is a largely inconsequential part of your personal identity, which has routinely been used as justification for persecution throughout human history.

(Personally: I support responsible gun ownership, but I don't think there's anything wrong with asking owners to register their serial numbers.)

There's plenty wrong with asking people to register their serial numbers, especially when you combine these two statements:

> asking owners to register their serial numbers > deadly weapon, bearing a serial number that might be especially useful if found at a crime scene

I'm legitimately curious here... what's the actual problem? I don't see any issue combining those two statements.

The second amendment gives you a right to own a firearm. Nowhere does it say you should be allowed to use it to commit criminal acts with impunity.

I view it like the requirement to have a license plate visible on my car, which seems reasonable given the risks involved in driving.

Because who committed a crime and who owns the firearm are often very different people in reality.

And you only need to have a plate visible on a vehicle if you plan on using it on public roads.

"Picking parts and playing favorites is what has lead us to the current state of affairs."

Citation Needed

Should we not require drivers licenses or car registration?

Is the right to keep and bear arms not an important part of an Americans identity?

Everyone has a culture, even if from your perspective it's normal or even "low".

It's protected by our constitution in the same Bill of Rights that assures US citizens' other freedoms, such as religion. Liberals and conservatives both need to learn that they can't pick and choose, and on one hand hold in reverence the 1st Amendment and on the other hand reject the 2nd, or vice versa.

Libertarians, on the other hand, recognize that all of the amendments are vital and represented a huge step forward for not only the US, but all of mankind. Now, if only we would abide by them at the present time...

Does the second amendment apply to assault weapons, machine guns, bazookas, artillery guns? When it was written, there were only muskets.

Does the first amendment apply to Internet speech? When it was written, there was no Internet.

An interesting, but somewhat depressing argument can be made that subscribing to a specific religion, along with one or two other "flags" is actually far more dangerous than legally purchasing a firearm.

Most reports put between 80%-94% of crimes involving a gun as being committed with an illegally obtained weapon. Which means of the 300k firearm related crimes in 2013 perhaps less than 20k were due to legal gun ownership.

I'm not bringing all this up because I actually believe Muslims are more dangerous than guns, or that Trump was right, or anything along those lines. I'm just trying to highlight how your bias might be more unfounded than you'd imagine.