The underlying discussion and debate on the second amendment was about an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal protection?
Can you find one quote for me from the discussion and debate to back that up?
"I find it patently offensive that this argument continues."
It should stop once you find that quote.
The first element that supports the individual rights interpretation is the text of the amendment, itself: “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There is no reason, in my view, to believe that this text should be interpreted as anything but an individual right.
It appears that there was fundamental agreement between the Federalists and the Anit-Federalists that the Federal government “should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.” (Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pg 320). James Madison (in Federalist No.46) noted that the American citizenry was ‘armed’, in contrast to “almost every other nation.” Far from disparaging this circumstance, he writes that it is “the advantage” enjoyed bu Americans. Also from the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, on page 320: “...everyone agreed that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arsm, any more than it shoud have the power to abridge the freedon of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.” (These being individual rights, as well) This recognition lent support to the notion that the Second Amendment assured an individual’s right, despite the small body of case law subsequent to Miller, which was finally corrected in Emerson (United States v Emerson, 2001).
Certainly personal protection was promoted by virtue of being armed. That could be protection from other people, or from an intrusive government.
And I still find it offensive that this argument continues.