With the sources thing, I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm going to counter your biased source with biased sources of my own, since that's better." I then supplied alternate sources for the only thing I was citing Lott to suggest, namely that CCW holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population, a point that you still have neither addressed or refuted, just as you haven't refuted any of the suggestions I made anywhere in this thread. (And I don't count insulting me personally as a refutation, even if it appears that you do.)
Like, what do you even want? I've never seen you pleased by any argument outside the National Review and some NRA funded think tank.
You mean except for all the other links I've posted? And all the ways in which I've suggested increased controls and restrictions? In all this, you've yet to establish any kind of position of your own. Are you suggesting doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely? Some specific set of additional laws? A gulag for anyone who's read the National Review? You accuse me of having red lines (which is inaccurate), but are unwilling to define your position at all. It's awfully easy to defend a moving target, and to criticize another's opinion without actually establishing what those criticisms are. All you've done so far is hand-waive any contrary position without giving the slightest support. When I showed other countries with higher gun-ownership-to-homicide rates, you dismissed those as "third world" countries, which (as I pointed at, and to which you haven't replied) proved the point I was making. But you then repeatedly infer my position on things without any actual support for that inference, but then that's somehow my fault too.
On to the substance. The Politico article you linked reads like someone who's decided what Heller said without actually reading it. The majority addresses and refutes every single point that they made.
There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Ok, except this is a misunderstanding of how the Constitution works. The Supreme Court has noted that some parts of the Bill of Rights
assume[d] the existence of the right [...] and protect it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). And yes, the Second is one of those rights:
The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
So why would there be argument over something that was taken for granted?
As for the interpretation of the phrase, this too is not as clear cut as the link you posted makes it seem. He cites a Tennessee court decision, but ignores contradictory interpretations from other states (e.g. Pennsylvania and Ohio). Heller devotes a good amount of time to determining what this phrase means (and I again recommend that you read the majority opinion), but here's one excerpt:
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (slip op. at 13). And lest you think this is some conservative golem, here's Justice Ginsburg:
Surely a most familiar meaning [of "keep and bear Arms" is] "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition) (emphasis added).
So, that's how I'd address this most current shift in your goal posts. You're welcome to dismiss things like "looking at legal history" as elitist, but if having a cogent, thought-out, and at least minimally-researched position on a specific question is elitist and pedantic, I'll wear those labels proudly.
You like guns. That's it. People are fucking that up for you.
You don't like guns. That's it. People and the law are fucking that up for you.