It is not a myth, it is an analogy. It is also an appropriate analogy for the particular considerations here.
" Stating some facts about the militias is not denigrating the second since I don't believe it is valid only with "well regulated" militias. Not that we HAVE any of those anymore."
Forget the militias. The 2nd refers to an individual right regardless.
"Reducing Bush's strength by encouraging people not to vote for him is as good a method to defeat him as any."
You are missing the relevant points altogether. The ball's in his hands, not ours. He can either act to assure the bill never hits his desk, or ally with the grabbers. The existence of Freedom does not depend on Bush, and that's what's important-the preservation of Freedom. Either Bush preserves and protects Freedom, or he doesn't.
"Nor would renewing the AWB totally destroy the 2d amendment any more than it has already."
You've presented chit-chat from various sources regarding war, armies, militias and various conflicts. The fact is that the outcome of war is determined by the actions taken during the conflict. Analyzing it and coming to conclusions regarding outcomes before hand is basically worthless.
The 2nd refers to the people's right to defend themselves against tyrany, amongst other evils. So, it is not the govm'ts place to determine what measures are to be allowed regarding the exercise of that right. Certainly this situation here involves the preservation of the bare minimum required for effective defense of Freedom and the meaning and reality of the 2nd.
Have you done anything yet to encourage the Administration, Senate, or House to junk the bill? That's important. Folks aren't going to put up with an all power fed that consumes most of what folks earn and gves it away for their own purposes, continues to dictate rules out the yin/yang and encourages and supports States + locals to do the same thing.
What's at stake here is the soul and character of the US and the very existence of Freedom.