but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia

Not according to the Supreme Court. Grammarians have long argued that "In support of a well-regulated militia" is a prefatory clause, and cannot bear on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", where People is the operative word, and is synonymous with "We the People", of whom this nation is constituted and by which is governed.

Ironically enough, the NRA, currently demonized for apparently endorsing mass killing, considers its main focus to be the training of safe and proper usage of firearms (that is, if you skip over their founding, which was to ensure that freed slaves remained free by giving them a means to protect their freedom). Firearms are interesting in that regard - the more you use them and don't get hurt, the more easy it is to fall into a false sense of security. I liken it to geeks and backups. We all assume it'll never happen to us, so even though we know it to be good practice and all that, sometimes we slip up out of arrogance, or comfort, or whatever.

I can't say that it isn't a consumerist culture, because obviously it is, and you're obviously very right about firearm legislation. I've wondered the same, and often come to the conclusion that probably, all legislation is probably considered poor by those in the know. If you want to have some fun, read up on the Lacey act, which I'm pretty certain makes 99% of all Americans unwitting felons.

A more cynical person might suggest that background checks are bad, and the only evidence you need to prove it is that Congress seems to be all for it. I'm not that cynical, and while I don't have any moral objection to them personally, I do consider them to be at odds with the notion of a Constitutional right. The right to speech, religion, voting, etc., are all practiced freely, without background checks, burden or "common sense" regulation - and just in case, before anyone mentions libel laws, or yelling fire in a theater, those aren't restrictions, but punishments for irresponsible or unlawful use of your right to free speech, in much the same way that laws against armed assault or murder are penalties for irresponsible or unlawful firearm use.

Having read everything I can from the Constitution-era framers, I think it's quite clear that they intended every man to have the luxury of bearing arms. I freely concede that felons and criminals do not and should not, as their rights have been restricted as a result of due process. By default, placing restrictions on the right to bear arms for those whose rights have not been curtailed, amended or restricted as a result of due process is wrong, just as unlawful search and seizure is wrong, or unlawful detainment, and citizens should not allow for it. Considering how poorly we've kept our other rights intact, I'm guessing we'll eventually cede more rights in the sway of politicians, but that's no reason we should have to do so willingly.

I think if they wish to infringe our rights, and 90% of everybody supports it, the process is simple -- amend the Constitution to repeal the second amendment. If that can't be done, then it should remain intact, and the right should not be infringed. If the amendment were repealed, I'd happily support it. Otherwise, until such time as it is, I see most legislation as either pointless, aggrandizing or outright offensive.