To address crime, the focus needs to be on the criminal rather than inanimate objects.

To the extent that politicians or judges are allowed to wink at what they perceive as outdated, unfashionable or inconvenient portions of the constitution they weaken ALL of the protections and the assurance of continuity the constitution provides.

What confuses me is a very large part of the left is willing to create rights - gay marriage , abortion ( both of which I support BTW) out of thin air. Legislative remedies have always existed and are preferable (albeit slower) than injecting politics into our pillars of governance.

Citizens of this country stand by while the document is creatively interpreted as long as they agree with the results which sets a terrible precedence.

They be prepared when, sometime in the future, judges with diametrically opposed biases interpret the constitution. In that case an issue which should be legislative is recast in a manner that excludes legislative remedies.

What if a future court decided that abortions are inherently unconstitutional?

I would submit our current armed forces is what the framers had in mind, not a rag tag bunch of armed citizens.

That said, if you want to own a firearm, that shouldn't be problem either, as long as the ownership process is regluated and governed by the laws of the state.

There are surprisingly few deaths given the propensity you and others on this thread seem to attribute to your fellow Americans to take fist fights and escalate them into the OK Corral.

Your arguments SOUND rational, but they are based on fear , and the fear isn't based on any meaningful facts.
Fact is, you have a very miniscule danger of gun death if you don't chose to commit suicide and you aren't a criminal.

Where's my right to a grenade launcher?

But seriously, what about some of these so-called less-than-lethal weapons the cops are so fond of (ab)using these days?  How about a can of pepper spray or a taser for self-defense?  OR for stand-your-ground.  Might be a good way to reduce the number of accidental gun deaths, gun homicides and gun suicides that take place in the home, if homes had fewer of those deadly weapons lying about and people were willing to make a substitute.

NOT that I think there oughtta be a law, I don't.  Just sayin'.  It would be a worthy cause, IMO, to find some creative ways to reduce wrongful (note the word WRONGFUL) deaths by gunfire in this country.

First off, everyone has already narrowed that Amendment from 'arms' to mean 'guns'.  So unless you are conceding we all have the right to own tanks and missiles you have done plenty of limiting yourself, which by your definition would also make you a reactionary.

We have no clearly-defined right to keep or bear guns. I don't believe that it exists or can be easily argued from intent. At the time of the framing, ownership of guns was a collective practice.

Of course, gun today is most often used as a slang word. At the time of the framing that particular word would have meant a fixed piece of artillery - like would have been found aboard ship or in fortifications.. That use survives to this day in our uniformed military. The USS Arizona carried 14-inch guns. When Gregory Peck carried out his secret mission to destroy The Guns of Navarone he wasn't out to damage the bar spring in some Luger P-08s.

What was protected is the right to keep and bear arms. The meaning of this word as well, really hasn't changed much to this day, though we tend to use the compound word firearm. Many of my shooting buddies take great pleasure at mocking my aversion to the use of the word gun.

Of course, I could just be making this up, so how do we know?

If you read through Revolutionary musters at that time or a township muster at the beginning of the 19th century, you'd plainly see that crew-served weapons and individual arms were routinely counted separately.

The Articles of Confederation, Article 6 provides a good example:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of Field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Emphasis is mine. Arms and artillery were not the same thing. Let's look at the First Militia Act circa 1792:

That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States.

And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.

See how that works? I know they include infantry in the separate enumeration, but - IMO - one can still glimpse the presumption.

I know you're not arguing from this point, but the founders weren't cave men - using pointy sticks and guttural sounds. They were men who were trained in the art of warfare and in many instances tempered by a bitter war and everyday survival in frontier areas. Many would have been familiar with missile attacks - though they lacked guidance systems so we have to call them rockets. They understood the language of the craft and they chose arms.

I believe that possibility exists in all 50 states, even those that have duty to retreat in combination with absence of statutory immunity.  A grand jury and an prosecutor have an ethical duty to forebear charging when the case can't be won, and that determination is an issue of sufficiency of the evidence; plus due consideration for a killer's potential assertion (maybe made to police) of self defense.

Te general sense was that if your actions in use of force are justified, the law should not be used to force you to cough up your net worth to civil litigants, years of your life to an over-zealous prosecutor, or combination of both.  There had been a number of high profile justified shootings (e.g., subject of armed robbery shoots back, thereby creating a victim) where the robber/victim won money damages from the shooter.

Short of a legislated barrier, the doors to civil court are always open.

In Miller, the Supreme Court held that a tax on an particular type of firearm is unconstitutional if the firearm "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or ... its use could contribute to the common defense."  It remanded the case for a finding as to whether or not a short barrel shotgun fit that description.

In Presser, the Supreme Court held that a parade permit law doesn't infringe the 2nd amendment.  In other words, that a group doesn't obtain a parade permit waiver as a matter of con law, if they carry guns during the parade.  In dicta, it said " the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

You stated it fairly clearly.  The progressive view is that the individual is a subject of the state.  

Incidentally it seems that the progressive view holds that most anything that makes the individual more dependent on the state is a good thing.  

Effective self defense bad.
Single payer good.

The immunity provision aims to spare a person who has used force with justification from the ordeals of arrest, charging, and all forms of prosecution in a court of law.

A number of state have some form of immunity, and in order for immunity to have any teeth, there has to be some judicially enforcible mechanism.  see 23 states that have sweeping self-defense laws just like Florida's.  I doubt all are "just like" Florida's in the mechanism for finally finding immunity, but I'm sure there are general similarities.

The US constitution has a "privileges and immunities" clause, and there are immunities other than for justified use of force in self defense.

Immunity from trial is sometimes granted in exchange for self-incriminating testimony.  The fourth amendment reinforces personal immunity from (or in case of) unreasonable search and seizure.

In some states, in order for the use of force to be found justified, the user of force must show that retreat was not available.  Those states have a duty to retreat before using any force, not just deadly force.

So, yes, in the entire field of states laws, there may be some that provide immunity for the justified use of force, but also impose a duty to retreat before using force.  In other words, if retreat was an option, and the person did not choose that option, then they do not obtain immunity.

Imagine being under a regime where all use of force by a non-state actor is criminal - even the use of force against unlawful force.  Most Americans (but not all of them) find the thought abhorrent.  Most people find it natural to justify the use of counterforce against a person who attacks them without provocation, and would be offended if they were prosecuted as criminals for using force to protect themselves against an unlawful attack.

I can think of no greater indignity than being forced to flee

How about getting yourself and your family shot because you didn't want to back down ?

F.S. 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: ... Initially provokes the use of force against himself ...