Well i’m happy to engage with you on the subject.
I have no problem with the first part of your post, i think more people should be introduced to firearms at a young age and taught to handle the safely and responsibly. Then we get to this.
And that’s where the utility for guns in modern American society begins and ends.
According to the CDC,
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
That’s 500k to 3 million defensive uses, in the context of 300k offensive uses. Then there’s this, from the same document.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).
All of that would seem to refute your claim that guns have no utility in modern American society. It would seem that up to 3 million people/year have found great utility in them.
THAT is what this amendment is referring to as a right to keep and bear arms: our right to organize and manage our own military.
You’re not completely off in your interpretations, in that the founding fathers were indeed afraid and mistrustful of a strong central government, that is spot on. However, your interpretation of the amendment itself is highly flawed. Particularly instructive here is a reading of the definitive Heller v D.C. case at the SCOTUS. In this case the justices conducted an exhaustive analysis of founding era documents to ascertain the intentions of the framers of the constitution, to determine exactly what they meant the second amendment to mean. There is a very detailed discussion of all of this in the opinion that i would suggest reading, but i will highlight a few pertinent passages to sum up their findings, (emphasis mine).
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existingright. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his 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 … .”16
And
These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia.
And
By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred.
Finally, and here they make one of their strongest statements yet, in declaring that self-defense is the “core” of the second amendment right. This wording is repeated throughout the text.
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
The decision discusses the connections between the prefatory clause and the operative clause, declaring that they “fit perfectly” when understanding the operative clause to refer to and individual right to keep and bear arms.
Because of fucking course it is. Reducing this amendment down to an interpretation that everyday citizens should be allowed to access weapons of mass murder while ignoring the fact that the US military consumes over 50% of our national budget is just plain stupid.
Well, if you feel the findings of the highest legal authorities in the country to be stupid, I would encourage you to become a judge to try to convince them of their errors. As to the 50% figure, no, it’s actually about 16%. The only way you get to a 50% figure is by disingenuously disregarding the ~64.5% of the budget afforded to mandatory spending and looking only at the remaining discretionary spending.

If you want more concrete evidence, feel free to go read the Federalist Papers, or any of the excellent historical scholarly research that’s been done regarding the 2nd Amendment. Plenty of people smarter than I am have laid clear the historical context I just summarized.
I have read all that. Unfortunately I, and the SCOTUS, disagree with your interpretation. Given this refutation of your interpretation, it renders the discussion on standing armies and the civil war unnecessary.
I don’t disagree with much of your discussion about the NRA, it is a hyperbolic organization driven by fear, though i see this not as an organization selfishly preying on the fears of its members for personal gain, rather i see it as a response to the continual, ever encroaching march of new gun control efforts. The increasing rhetoric coming from the NRA correlates quite well with the increasing push for gun control.
You’ll notice that in the NRA’s publicity campaigns, reference to keeping and exercising a “well regulated militia” is scarce — despite the fact that this is actually the focal point of this amendment. Why?
Well, the amendment’s connection to militias is not now, nor ever really has been, in danger, so what reason would they have to highlight it? What has been in danger are other aspects of the amendment, the citizens’ ability to lawfully keep and bear arms for defense. One need only look at D.C. or Chicago’s now defunct handgun bans to see this in effect.
Ok, so you want to exercise your right to form a regulated militia and bear arms, to ensure the security of our “free State” — security from the oppression of our own government, as well as others.
And you think your pistols and semi-automatic rifles
are going to make any kind of a dent against the US military? Are you serious?
You are aware that the US military has tanks, and drones, and nuclear missiles, and your little semi-automatic assault rifle will do less damage than a MOSQUITO in the face of any one of those things individually?
I’ve had to rebut this arguments more times than i can count. If you want the answers to these questions, spend a few minutes asking a veteran who served in Afghanistan just how difficult it is to fight a well armed, motivated, entrenched enemy with the support of the local population, even with all of our technological advantage. Sixteen years later and we’re still dealing with the Taliban.
Just how easily do you think the American military would be able to subjugate the American people in an open revolt or occupation scenario? Do you have any idea how many orders of magnitude more weapons there are here than there were in Afghanistan? Do you have any idea the psychological and ethical conflicts our soldiers would be faced with in being ordered to fire upon American civilians? How many of them would obey?
Tanks don’t help much in urban environments, fighting against small and much more agile adversaries. Drones can be spoofed, jammed, or shot out of the sky with off the shelf technology we have here. Nukes…really? Is the American government going to nuke an American city? Do you really think the populace would stand for that? Do you think the American military personnel would follow that order? Do you not think nearly every one of the 300+million weapons in this country would be taken up and pointed at the nearest government official? Who side do you think the millions of very well-armed veterans no longer in active service would take in such a scenario?
You’re knowledgeable about guns, so you know there’s little difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle, and there are untold millions of hunting rifles in civilian hands here. Can you imagine the nightmare a military would be faced with in dealing with an American insurgency? The Afghani’s have made our lives hell with IED’s made using whatever crude implements they had available, like cell phones from the 90’s and unexploded ordinance. Can you fathom the kind of IED’s that would be created by technologically savvy Americans with the resources and tech we have available?
Also, here’s one of those “little semi-automatic” rifles you’re mocking. It’s recorded kills out to 2,300 meters and can penetrate 1.5 inches of steel armor. It’s got enough punch to it that it’s not even considered anti-personnel, it’s anti-material/anti-tank. Plenty of these in civilian hands to complement the millions of AR and Kalashnikov variants floating around.

I always hate having this argument. It’s a silly notion that will never come to pass, but hyperbole is hyperbole and i can’t stand silly claims that hold no weight.
No, as an experienced member of gun culture, I reject this behavior, not only of the so-called Three Percenters, but of all the militia and “2nd Amendment rights” activists who insist on openly carrying weapons into public places…
The open carry vs concealed carry debate is a hot one in the gun community, and one we can certainly discuss, though i would note that this choice is taken off the table in many states as the legislature establishes a licensing regime that makes the choice for everyone. However, Michigan is not one of those, allowing both concealed and open carry so that doesn’t really apply to the people you referenced.
…and pushing legislature that makes it easy for highly destructive weapons to end up in the hands of teens, the mentally ill, and angry disassociated men who have been frothed into anger by the rhetoric of an insatiably greedy industry…
Well that’s all rather vague. What legislature, specifically, are you referring to? What laws would you like to see enacted, what areas improved?
…and refuse to address the countless dangerous loopholes and lack of proper training that’s rampant in gun registration and ownership.
Again, what loopholes, and how is a loophole any different than simply being the law? This term gets thrown around constantly, inappropriately. It’s not a loophole for example that you don’t need a background check at a gun show in certain states, it’s the law, a law which never intended to make such behavior illegal. People purchasing there are following the law 100%. Complaining that they are using a loophole by engaging in completely legal activity is rather like complaining that someone is just using a loophole by driving 64 in a 65 zone to avoid a ticket. You and others only consider it a loophole because the 100% legal activity is something you want to be illegal. But it’s not.
As to training requirements, there is room for discussion there. Generally, most people in the gun community are in favor of training, and many or most would be fine with training requirements, as long as they are not overly-burdensome and used as a quiet way of suppressing the exercise of the right itself.
Here’s the problem with training requirements, i’ll give you a perfect example of why the gun community is wary of them. In Chicago there was an all out handgun ban for decades until it was struck down in McDonald v Chicago, again at the SCOTUS. So, having been forced to allow citizens to now own handguns, they instead tried to prevent people from doing so through the use of their licensing scheme.
In order to own a handgun, you had to be licensed. In order to be licensed you had to clock X hours at an official gun range. Oh and BTW we’re outlawing civilian access to all gun ranges in Chicago….
These people would similarly abuse any other training requirements implemented.
See, here’s the problem. Those in the gun community know the kind of people on the other side, those constantly pushing for new legislation and greater control. We know that what the other side really wants is a total gun ban, and they view every new law as a step closer. They will never be satisfied, and they have said as much over and over again. We can see this in things like arbitrary magazine capacity. It began with 10 rounds, a number pulled out of thin air, then they tried to move it down to 7 rounds, an even more arbitrary number.
NY actually banned magazines over 7 rounds until someone told them that no one actually makes 7 round magazines for most guns. So they said “ok well…fine, you can have larger magazines, but it’s illegal to put more than 7 rounds in at a time”…
These are the people that want us to believe that the laws they pass are for public safety, rather than simply making it more and more onerous and frustrating to be a gun owner. Whole lotta criminals gonna abide by that restriction are they?
These are also the ones who coined the term assault weapon, which was an entirely made-up category meant to make them sound scary.
Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Assault rifles are select-fire rifles capable of automatic fire, and almost without exception these are only found in military and Law Enforcement hands. Assault weapons, are nothing, they’re made up by legislators who were so unfamiliar with weapons that they used cosmetic features to categorize them. It was a blatant attempt to conflate non-automatic weapons with automatic weapons in order to make them sound more scary, and it worked well. Even you, who self professes to be an experienced member of gun culture, use these terms interchangeably in this very article and suggest that people are walking into stores with fully automatic rifles.
This is a perfect example of the kind of person regulating things when she knows nothing about them.
Or this gem. Heat-seeking bullets!
Semi-automatics are new the beard bling.
You say this derisively, but i notice that it didn’t stop you from using your semi-auto AR.
I won’t even get into the sexist/racist aspects you mention because, come on…
Guns are one thing that everyone bonds over. Every trip to the gun range or gun store is sure to find plenty of women and minorities. No one cares who or what you are, they just like talking about the guns. They’re a great icebreaker.
