"I am making a legal argument, [...]"
I'm not asking you to convince me that the Constitution says what you think it says. Maybe it even does. "Alexander Hamilton thought it was a great idea" is not a convincing argument for me here.
I'm asking you to convince me that what it is is the way it should be. The USA pays a huge cost for the amount of private gun ownership it has, relative to other countries. Most gun-related injuries are a) accidents, b) suicide attempts, and c) the result of domestic disputes. Very few gun injuries are at all like the script most gun-owners imagine, of them valiantly protecting their home and their loved ones from burglaries our assaults by criminals. No one on the pro-gun-ownership side of the argument seems willing to concede these clear and demonstrable facts.
I don't believe private gun ownership is deterring tyranny. I don't believe private gun ownership is deterring terrorism. I don't believe gun ownership is deterring a land invasion by a foreign aggressor. I don't believe private gun ownership is deterring illegal immigration. I don't believe private gun ownership is even much deterring garden-variety crime in America.
I do believe private gun ownership is causing an insane amount of injury and death, and distorting our politics in unhealthy ways. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I don't see why I should have to shoulder any part of the cost so that other guys can go out to a gun range on saturdays and shoot up the place, whatever their fantasies or rationalizations may be.
It reminds me about arguments for and against mandatory motorcycle helmet use. No one has convinced me that, even if they are within their rights, that its a very smart thing to do, for the individual or for society collectively.