Everyone who's bought an assault rifle since the Sandy Creek shooting should go fight in Afghanistan

Many have the mythic and nostalgic second-amendment notion that once upon a time gun-owning citizens would take up arms as militiamen to defend our country. Many of the founding fathers voiced concerns about having a standing army during peace time, so this myth appeals to the peace-loving, military-industrial complex fearing side of me in addition to the traditional/patriotic side of me. Furthermore, on the surface level it seems to make sense of the entirety of the second amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you're an original-intent-type Constitutionalist, then I hope you agree that all second amendment lovers should memorize and quote the entire second amendment when referring to it. Many who are this way about the Constitution are also this way about the Bible, and we've been warned over and over again in that regard not to take verses or phrases "out of context." If you're having trouble memorizing it, then here's the folk song that helped me to memorize it.

Speaking of context, we know that the second amendment is not endorsing leveling war against the United States for Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution identifies such as treason punishable by as much as death. To none of the rebellions against the United States, two of the most well-known being the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794)  and the South during the Civil War (1861-1865), did the U.S. government respond by saying, "that's OK, they're just exercising their second amendment rights." So perhaps instead this meant forming militias to protect against foreign enemies such as the British or Native Americans. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that this is right. Then all gun owners should be fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan right now.

But, an informed person might bring up, the Supreme Court, for the first time in U.S. history, extended the second amendment to handgun ownership. Well you're getting away from original intent and siding with activist judges if you argue thus. But since I'm not as opposed to nuanced interpretation by the Supreme Court, let's admit that mere handgun owners are not ready to go fight in a way. I feel generous, and willing to compromise, so let's put hunting rifle owners in this same category.

Assault rifles, however, are an entirely different thing. Those buying such weapons are preparing for war. Thus, I conclude that everyone who's bought an assault rifle should go fight in the bi-partisan FUBAR in Afghanistan, especially the a**holes who have bought one since the Sandy Creek massacre.