"not glamorous or exciting".       That's the crux of the problem.    So many are convinced that it is glamorous and exciting.

And that they can defend their castles, in the time-honored macho way (at least in Westerns and similar genres) by blowing away anybody they don't like.

And not have to answer to anybody else.

They want the "every man his own militia" approach.

That's why "well-regulated" is the solution.   Just interpret the 2nd Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended it---which, as I've noted elsewhere, is what the NRA et al. keep whining about anyway (they constantly bitch and moan about how judges "make law rather than interpret it".    Fine, let's go along with the conservative insistance on strict constructionism--let's divine exactly what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind at the time it was passed. It's not hard to do. At the time of the Bill of Rights the militia, yet again, was to substitute for a standing army.

So all gun owners, from now on, will have to show up for drill on a regular basis--just as the plan was back then.

Drill will not just be shooting your weapon, but also learning how to march, handle weapons in a uniform way, salute officers you probably think know less than you do, and be prepared to leave your state at a moment's notice to meet a danger you may not think exists.   By the way, you won't be paid for any of this.

I wonder how much enthusiasm gun owners will have then for the 2nd Amendment.