I'll get back to you this afternoon when I'm more awake.

@t1nick 2nd Amendmentors (nice neologism) lack self confidence and “fake it until they make it.” They serve as each others’ mentors and mentees/proteges.

Alright, an attempt to answer your quesry. First let me say that I do not believe that the Constitution is a static document. It cannot be. The Originalists have it wrong. No encompassing document like the Constitution that bears upon the life of so many individuals could possibly be static. People and cultures are not static.

The world in which the Foundung Fathers envisioned and wrote the document that we now treasure and base our governmental world around (i.e. with the exception of the present GOP Party) was far different than what we are living in today. They had no way of envisioning the complexity and population density that exists in our country today. There was no way the could have.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the population was focused along the Eastern seaboard. At that time, the chief opponents were the Brits and Native Americans ( and they were quickly been pushed out their own land displaced westward). Because the population was just beginning to burgeon. villages were fairly widely distant from one another. The distance between one village to the next, made a local militia necessary should some invasion or incursion occur to the outliers.

That situation no longer exists. Expansive populations and metropolises as opposed to villages, no longer requires a local militia to respond to incursions. Any incursions occurring now would occur as a foreign assault and would be addressed immediately by the National militia (army, navy, marines, air force, coast guard, police, etc).

Further, the ever growing population stresses that exist by shrinking land mass and the compacting of large numbers of persons in a close quarters heightens the stresses that exists in daily culture. Combine this with the proliferation and easy access of firearm acquisition and you have an explosive situation. The potential for a crime or incident in which firearms are involved increases.

We no longer need an independent militia to guard and protect our citizens. We have our official national, state and local law enforcement for that. So, the talking point about needing to protect their family, is just a NRA talking point. We have police for that and no matter how many guns are out there, statistically there will always be unpredicted incidents, even with protection at home.

Many of the 2nd Amendmentors swear that they need to protect themselves from the government. This suggests a paranoid mindset, which in itself is not healthy. We all get angry at the government, but the majority do not arm themselves to actively resist the government. Ardent gun owners and 2nd Amendmentors number about 6 million. That is about 1/6 ot the American population. A sizable number, but not anywhere even close to a majority. The majority of the American public have asked for increased and comprehensive registration of gun purchases going henceforth. Most feel that assault weapons do not belong in the hands of average citizens and on the street. Gun trigger locks and digital recognition is not an imposition.

I guess I've meandered enough. To answer your question (short story long) proper guardianship of the Constitution first begins by realizing and admitting that todays society is significantly different that at the time of it writing. Concerns should be based upon this understanding. The document is a live and fluid document, subject to consideration pertaining to todays society. We cannot afford to use 1776 thinking when dealing the the complexities of a 2020 world. Registration and limitation of weapons not meant for general consumption should be regulated and controlled.

@t1nick
Search on SCOTUS GUNS and in Wikipedia you’ll see pages of summaries of gun rulings by various courts, many by the US Supreme Court. ( With several clicks you will find the full text of rulings. ) I think in the second case, with the name Presser, SCOTUS banned private armies in states. That case obviously wasn’t about militias.
I agree about Originalism and the living document idea. One problem is that those on opposite sides can both claim to be protectors — because neither knows in advance how a court may rule. More later.

@t1nick I appreciate your reply’s organization; I will respond paragraph by paragraph, numbering each one and quoting a word or two.

1. “Alright....” We agree.
2. “The world....” Trump has said, “I do not lose.” If he loses in November I hope he will go quietly. I hope the gun-toting gangs he has cultivated will stay in their homes. The police have been militarizing. Read “Business Plot” Wikipedia article.
3. “At the time....” Ok.
4. “That situation....” Ok.
5. “Further,....” The situation is not now explosive. What might make it so?
6. “We no longer....” Police, etc do not and cannot timely respond to 911 calls. Protecting family is not just an NRA talking point. Unpredicted home invasions by one or two thugs is more common that you know and statistics do not provide protection.
7. “Many of....” A suggested paranoid mindset does no harm. Only actions do harm. Majorities of NRA members want background checks. Days after Trump’s inauguration, the GOP Congress passed a bill allowing mentally ill people to purchase guns but I don’t have the law’s precise wording. The SCOTUS Heller decision said citizens don’t need assault weapons and gun-friendly Scalia wrote it. In a home invasion the delay caused by trigger locks and digital recognition may be a fatal imposition.
8. “I guess....” Who does 1776 thinking in a 2020 world? It’s a talking point.

When some on the 2nd Amendmentors say they need guns to protect themselves and their families I suspect has nothing to do with home invasion. I'm speculating here as I cannot get into their mind, but based on other circumstantial clues from their actions, their claim is racially based.

What I mean by that? I get the feeling that they imagine the need to protect themselves by an attack from a black or Hispanic (most common groups chosen) male. The problem with this projection is that they are not very likely to go out of their way to find themselves in a situation whereby, they would be accosted by one or more individuals of the paranoid fantasy. Most would purposely not go driving into an inner city barrios, ghetto or housing project. If they did they are probably looking for trouble or confrontation. Yet they project this fallacy as their reason for needing a gun for protection.

@t1nick Do a search on “in crime statistics, frequency of home invasions”.

Agreed. It is a counter productive demand and makes it harder to get realistic legislation.