They're not going to "come and take your firearms" while you are a law-abiding citizen. They are going to pass so many finely detailed laws about nothing that they will take your firearm as part of a warranted search when someone tips (truthfully or not) that you have violated one of these laws you know nothing about.
Exactly. There are very few truly "law abiding" citizens left, because to truly abide by all the laws in this country you practically need a law degree. If they were to pass some truly heinous anti-gun legislation, all those petty misdemeanors and civil infractions would be suddenly brought to bear as an excuse to find your guns and confiscate them.
That's assuming they don't pass some form of mandatory national registration first...at which point either they'd have no problem finding your guns, or you'd no longer be a law abiding citizen (unregistered firearms).
The law is fun, no?
As far as getting into a shootout to defend your gun stash...good luck with that. There will always be more LEOs with better weapons than you have. You will lose, and most likely die. And, if history is any indicator, the majority of the population with either not care or just see you as some crazed "gun nut" who took things to far...so your death will be unlikely to change anything.
The courts would be a better option, and quite frankly
more likely to bring about change...though still unlikely, I'll admit.
As for the second amendment, something to consider: neither "arms" nor "bear" is clearly defined in the text (nor "infringed," though that word doesn't have such broad possibilities of definition), so it really is open to some level of interpretation. I know how
I interpret it, and it's probably much the same way that you (and most of us here) interpret it. But that doesn't mean that this is the only way to do so, and that any other interpretation is automatically invalid.
Personally, given the full text as well as the context in which it was written, I can't see any interpretation that doesn't involve allowing the ownership of the civilian equivalent of whatever weapons are commonly used by the military (currently AR-15, 92F, etc) even if nothing else. It would make no logical sense. But we have a process for determining constitutionality, and as long as that process is used the law is valid.
Would I follow a law that I felt infringed on the basic principle of the second amendment? I'll preemptively plead the fifth on that one. Luckily I currently live in a place where that's not so much of an issue.