A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.

I love SLATE!    They use the most bizarre arguments to bolster political opinions which are indefensible, which makes them vulnerable to a simple statement of fact to discredit their opinions.

A case in point:

SLATE: A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.:

The 27 words of the Second Amendment don’t say anything about how many guns someone can own in America. Neither do the other 7,564 words in the Constitution. Yes, this is a facile point to make. A lot of things—including rights, responsibilities, and government powers we take for granted—aren’t itemized in the Constitution. While saying you can’t find something doesn’t necessarily mean anything, conservatives use this trick all the time.

The conclusion which SLATE derives from this 'logic' is undermined by their own acknowledgement that 'this is a facile point to make"  Slate has committed a Prima Fascia argument which is easily refuted.   Liberals use this trick all the time. 

 What the 2nd Amendment says (in so many words) is "... shall not be infringed ...".   The Second Amendment has been clearly defined as NOT endowing American citizens with a right; that right antecedes the Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment exists solely to enumerate rights which pre-exist the Constitution.   When SLATE decides to re-interpret the Constitution, it demonstrates either an immature comprehension of the document, or a willing mis-interpretation to support it's own political position.

To deliberately misconstrue the Constitution in this manner is an egregious effort to sway ill-informed readers toward the SLATE's author's own personal bias.

Limiting the number of an object which 'may' legally be owned is awkward and unlikely in the instance of any object; in the specific instance of firearms ownership, it is explicitly forbidden by the Constitutional admonition: "... shall not be infringed ..." and this limitation is obviously an infringement. 

The argument "you don't need more than one gun to hunt deer" is facile and quite beside the point.   Even if it were not: I own firearms for several purposes:  Competition *(RIFLE, SHOTGUN, PISTOL)*, self-defense, Deer hunting, Antelope hunting, Elk hunting, Rabbit hunting, Bird hunting (several varieties), plinking, TEOTWAWKI ....there are the reasons for my ownership of at least a dozen firearms! 

And I own heritage firearms, passed down from father to sons for at least three generations.  I've passed some of them down to my son ...and would pass them down to my daughter, except she's not interested.  I love her anyway.

Not that I need to explain my "need to own firearms: but a lot of people don't understand that their life style is not comparable with my own.   For example, I don't live in a Major Metropolitan Area.  And I don't have children or 'untrained individuals' sharing my residence.

Note that the Second Amendment was originally objected to by many of our Founding Fathers, because they believed  that to provide specifications was to invite contest of a basic 'inalienable' right.  They couldn't imagine why anyone would want to refute the simple RIGHT to defend nation, family, home, self, possessions.

In retrospect, they seem to have been correct in predicting that Liberals (a term which definition has been reversed since the 18th Century) may use that single amendment to justify their opposition,

I don't know why they *(anti-gun folks, which term I admit I use interchangeably with "Liberals")* continue to rant and rail against the Second Amendment; it simply affirms that firearm ownership is a right for Americans, regardless of any another restriction except those which are "proven factors" that an individual is not legally, mentally or emotionally competent to exercise their Constitutional rights in this area.

According to Liberals, there are no citizens who are competent to exercise this right.  I suspect that this may be a "projection", because they don't think that they are personally capable of rational thought or civil exercise of their rights.

The single exceptions , according to Liberals, are Law Enforcement Personnel, and active duty member of the Armed Forces. Personally, I have known both LEOs and Soldiers that I wouldn't trust with a gun. (I've served with a couple of soldiers who were mentally, emotionally and physically incompetent.)   As a consequence, I'm somewhat dubious about the whitewash for "police and military" as being universally competent.

SLATE apparently thinks that the "clear intentions" of the authors of the Constitution is passe', and no longer applicable to current American thought.

There are millions of responsible firearms owners who will take personal exception to SLATE's pompous assumption of moral and civic authority.