Ok, then....
Why should anyone have to register their car? Why should anyone have to pass a driving test (that obviously isn't hard to pass, considering the driving behavior of many people nowadays)? Why should you need a license?
The question isn't whether or not registration or training helps - its whether or not its a violation of the second amendment. Does requirement of registration or training violate this?
As for Vermont - comparing Vermont to California is an apples to oranges comparison. The correct comparison would be California pre-gun laws to post-gun laws, and comparing to trends in similar urban environments without restrictive laws...
It doesn't violate the Second Amendment. It DOES violate the 4th and 5th amendments. What the law requires and what is morally right are two completely different things. Also, I would like to point out that most people with drivers licenses still don't have a clue how to drive safely. A standard set up by the insurance companies would probably be a lot more efficient in the long run than anything conceived of by bureaucrats.
The courts have invented tests which they apply to regulatory schemes based on the area being regulated. Driving a car, or its Founding era equivalent of driving a cart or piloting a ship, is an activity which can reasonably benefit from regulation without infringing a protected right.
The lowest level of "test" only requires the slightest possibility that a regulation might be useful. The regulation needs to be unambiguous and needs to pass, probably, some degree of due process so that people can understand the law and obey it. There are not many laws which fail to meet this test.
When examining a law which attempts to regulate a protected right, the courts will use a "strict scrutiny" test. This, I believe, is the most restrictive test. When this test is applied, the regulations must meet several criteria. One is that the regulation must be the least intrusive. If there is some other less intrusive way to accomplish the purpose, then the regulation cannot stand. Most importantly, the purpose of the law must be met by the law. It IS the burden of the government to demonstrate that there is value to the law.
Most of these judicial processes were worked out during the civil rights era and applied to such things as poll taxes and poll tests. Any benefit that such regulations might achieve were found to be completely outweighed by the right of people to elect their own representatives.
Here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, I have helped with an initiative drive attempting to add a "right to keep and bear arms" to the Kalifornia Constitution. At the time of Kalifornia's founding, the people "in charge" had little desire to mandate that people of spanish or native American descent have an enforceable right to keep and bear arms.
The language of the proposed amendment spells out that every limitation to the right must meet the criteria of "strict scrutiny". It just isn't practical to list every hare-brained anti-gun law on the books or attempt to exclude every possible future law. The term "strict scrutiny" requires the government to prove the usefulness and limited invasiveness of every gun law.
What about my question regarding the registration of your books. There might be some usefulness to such a thing, you know. The Patriot Act includes the ability to search library records, I believe. We are already on the slippery slope. Have a nice ride.