Calling bullshit. Serious attempts at gun restriction, especially on the national scale, are as modern of a development as serious pro-gun advocacy. That's like saying that electronic privacy concerns don't matter because no one gave a fuck before electronic privacy was getting infringed.
Ah yes, the super important, well established, additional test of the "Is you using right good?" standard. That is a crucial component of constitutional law. Any rights that is not being used sufficiently good may be restricted beyond strict scrutiny standards, because, regardless of their status in the Constitution, they are obviously not important. Be sure to take note protesters, gun owners, and privacy advocates.
I have no idea what you're trying to say there, but let me tell you this: No-one is going to grab your AR-15, and you're entitled to defend yourself from authoritarian oppression if that oppression shows up on your doorstep. You have the right to legally amass a personal arsenal fit for a Pashtun warlord, but you also have the absolute, unavoidable responsibility to ensure that not a single innocent is hurt by your personal weaponry, regardless of who is pulling the trigger. As a soldier you should bally well understand that neglecting your responsibilites implies forfeiting your rights, and people who cannot handle the responsibility of owning a gun should have no right to own one.
EDIT: Gorillion ninjas.
Yes. Within the goddamn fucking strict scrutiny test. Obviously, the government is unable to take my rifle away. Doing so on any kind of scale (which is the realm of moderate quality thrillers, not the real world) would result in justifiable Civil War. This provides no protection to people who have tried, do try, and continue to try to marginalize, complicate, and criminalize gun ownership. My Pashtun warlord arsenal is reasonably safe, but the ability for me to start actually working on it five years from now is in question. The ability of my hypothetical children and children to build that stockpile if they wish is the actual question that gets discussed here. Once given away, Rights don't get taken back without blood.
Assembly is an individual right in the sense that you may not have a government mandated "assembly group" and then claim that this fulfills the requirement. It is not a collective right that some people can assemble, it is my individual right that I and a group of other individuals may peacefully assemble as we choose (once again subject to narrow-least restrictive modifications if made for a compelling government interest)