how many of you CA residents plan to register your "assault rifles"

[Buzz cook]

60. Fisking

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fisking

The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.

I happily admit my bias. And I await you easy denbunking.

.snip very real historical examples of white violence against minorities-which are
nonetheless merely 'argument by association'.

Sadly you use the association fallacy wrongly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

A proper example would be Arms are in the constitution and guns are arms there for guns are in the constitution. That it the fallacy by association.

Here's my argument. Guns in the hands of private citizens are frequently used to support oppressive government. An example of that is committees of vigilance using guns to support the anti minority government of California. It's called evidence you see.

Why, yes, you did- but your examples of violence against people of color neither proves nor disproves
your argument.

So how many examples of private citizens using firearms against minorities are enough? There comes a point were correlation and causation meet. Lynching could not have reached the level it did without the tacit support of government and we know the non governmental forces were organized to terrorize minorities.
It is odd that you're challenging the existence of the KKK.

Or witness the reaction to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club marching in the Dallas area ...

Yes I read the news. In my reading I never saw were the Huey P. Newton Gun Club advocated violence in the same manner that the Aryan Brotherhood does. And I have yet to see a Black Nationalist in the Oval Office as I see members of the Alt Right are.

So choose Black Lives Matter or the Huey P. Newton Gun Club. Which has a better chance of making positive change?
Sorry don't answer its a false dichotomy.

This elides several factors: the roles of Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League,

Yes I should have mentioned them while I was referencing the ANC and the Sons of Liberty etc.

Lastly I'm disappointed at your quote mining.
But first to be clear, my belief is that the 2nd amendment's militia clause is the active part of that amendment. At the time the states were fearful of the power of the federal government and wanted to be assured that they could maintain there own armies, just in case. While there were Northerners that held this belief, it was the Southerners, even at that early date jealous to maintain slavery, that championed the 2nd.

So, from your link.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Here's were you cut your quote.

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.

(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).

And then there was Stevens.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

The logical fallacy of quote mining is that someone might actually read the text selectively quoted from.