So gun violence isn't a reality?
"Gun Violence" is no more a reality than hammer violence or rock violence.
All are inanimate objects.
My firearms, and I have been around firearms all my life, have yet to do anything I did not make them do.
They have never removed ammo from the box, loaded themselves, and discharged without my direct input. They stay where I put them, and harm no one.
There is no "Gun Violence".
The violence is all conducted by people regardless of the instrument they may choose, if any.
Force violent PEOPLE to use different tools and they will use something different.
Without the people, there would be no violence.
Maybe you can ban violent people. (IIRC you have argued against that permanent ban, even on an individual and adjudicated basis.)
You said:
The 2A addresses the right to own a gun (for self-protection of one's person, home and property, which is a natural right of man). "Redress against tyranny" is bullshit in the context of our Constitutional republic, where our laws have their origin in the actions of our elected representatives, who can be removed from office by the People.
Reasonable restrictions on lawful transfers of property do not implicate the 2A.
The Second Amendment makes no mention of guns.
The word is "arms" and includes anything which can be used in that sense, commonly including edged weapons, pointy things, long pointy things, pointy things you make go a long ways, things that go 'thunk' if vigorously applied to another object, and a host of other items including just about anything that can be used to injure an enemy. Firearms fit in there somewhere.
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.
Without playing word games, in the parlance of the day, "Regulated" means "controlled" (as it does today), and "Militia" was defined as "The Army, in its entirety".
That predicate clause would not exist were it not for the perceived need to keep the Army from taking over, (which Tyranny had just been ended in the former Colonies which had been military governorships), and yet an army was needed to secure the borders and fend off attackers.
That means of control over that necessary army was spelled out in the Federalist, and would be provided by the overwhelming numbers of the armed citizenry, who, even in the absence of martial training, would prevail in a contest with the standing army by sheer force of numbers, if the need arose to prevent the overthrow of the civil government and imposition of tyranny.
So, yes, the primary purpose of the RKBA was a bulwark against tyranny.