False dichotomy. A free society is more than just the freedom to allow anybody to buy any weapon possible with zero limitations and without thought as to the greater ramifications.

Thats the childish idea that there is no such thing as "too much".

There are other aspects of a free society, like opportunity. The opportunity to not die in a mass shooting. Not have to tote a gun with you wherever you go in fear of violence.

One, that's an argument for an actual militia, not an argument against gun control. Two, weren't you talking about original intent rather than contemporaneous understanding? (nice word of the day, by the way) Three, that's the kind of tortured logic that gives people pause about the judiciary (similarly to the Obamacare ruling, to be honest). We have about as much chance of flapping our arms and flying to the moon as being called up for the militia. And, if by some miracle, we were, the first thing they'd do is pass out weapons.

correlation vs cause anybody?

Neither, been to D.C. before it's hot and muggy as fuck and not all that interesting; seen it once you've seen it all.
And fuck potatoes.

Why the fuck would anyone want to walk through Idaho?

Individual open-border states with some degree of gun control surrounded by an ocean of other states without gun control is an experiment with extremely low validity. There isn't enough saturation when a neighboring state doesn't follow the rules. It's similar to the gun show background check loophole, it defeats the purpose.

You need to look at examples with more reliability, Australia, Japan, Canada, etc.

While I think it is prone to some sort of disaster, I dont see anything wrong with exercising the first amendment and second amendment together.

And saying it should be treated as a rebellion is retarded.

I don't see how this is an "ultimate test of the second amendment."

I'm all for it though if regular gun owners want to hug the dumb and the crazy.