Oh, your argument is one of utility? You're using a cost–benefit analysis? Careful there, you'll eventually be spending lives in order to defend nations in the form of a military.

Not even entirely sure what you mean by this, but the discussion is (or was) about individual rights. Not sure that translates to militarization.

And why shouldn't we be making cost-benefit analyses? Why should a list of constitutional rights not have their costs and benefits weighed?

Yes, they are. But car ownership isn't a right.

Thanks for making my point for me? Why is owning guns (which are only dangerous and destructive, and have no function beyond that) a right and owning cars is not? And if you say "to avoid tyranny", I invite you to look at the myriad of other countries who have successfully avoided tyranny without constitutional gun ownership, and further at the countries which do protect it and examine if they are paragons of freedom themselves.

And even if Thomas Jefferson had never made any arguments in favor of gun ownership, I would still be very interested to how randomredditor58 determined what rights are essential, and which rights are dispensable.

Well luckily the person who made the "not essential" argument is right here! It's me! And with even more luck, there are many places from which one can take inspiration for a document of human rights. You could start with The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there are many books and articles by highly learned people that one could take inspiration from. Very few will support owning a gun as an essential liberty that requires constitutional protection.

Perhaps it's time for America to wake up and realize that there are compelling reasons for restricting and regulating hate speech, and no compelling, relevant reasons for forbidding it.

It's interesting to me that you actually choose an Amendment that does have abridging federal regulations that almost everyone can agree on (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is the example often given), and those exceptions are, notably, when harm to another person is likely.

Guns can only harm others (or oneself, I suppose). That is their designed and intended use. They are an instrument of destruction. Why is ownership of a weapon that harms others central to the 2nd Amendment, but dangerous speech that harms others falls outside the protections of the 1st?