I think the latter should be somewhat disqualifying! Obviously, a standard would need to be created, but it's not impossible to draw that line.

only rich democrats would be allowed to own guns - for evidence see how concealed carry permits are handed out in blue areas. The government is incapable of wielding that level of power without massive corruption.

A modest $90,000 in donations to a very specific charity in Santa Clara county, though in years before I've heard it can be had for a bit less if you're not in a rush.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/19/main-witness-in-santa...

Nope. When doing a background check for a clearance they do it just fine. I worked with all sorts of nutjobs in defense. They just weren't violent nutjobs.

You don't have a constitutional right to work in the defense industry.

The 2nd Amendment has limits. Why do I need stricter background checks for machine guns and short barreled rifles?

That's not the Second Amendment. That's the NFA. The Second Amendment is very clear with its intent ("shall not be infringed"). It's the opinion of some folks that we have laws, like the NFA, that violate the Second Amendment.

Does the constitution define "the people" as something that necessarily belongs to and devolves to individuals?

Or for instance, does it mean that the federal government can't ban state organized militias?

Yes, actually, it does very clearly mean individuals. To quote the relevant amendments that cite "The People":

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What meaning would the 4th have, if "The People" were state assemblies? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons"... Would that mean it was up to individual states to decide if you are secure in... What, exactly?

Or consider the 1st, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"... Why would a state need to petition "The Government", as it is "The Government".

There is no reasonable reading of the constitution that reads the second amendment as anything but an individual right.

It'd have to be threat of violence.