Just to quibble with your last point, I think it would be reasonable to say humans have a biological predisposition to use tools and to defend themselves. I know I have a very primal urge to protect my young children; I could see how that could manifest in someone else as wanting to own a gun to protect one's family.

Absolutely, but to frame that sentiment in the analogy with sex that the GP made would be something like "we have a natural urge to have sex, therefore we must protect sex toys". (That may or may not be a valid argument with respect to sex toys, but my point is it's a different one than presented above).

Put differently, "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => self defense OK" is not the same proposition as "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => guns OK". There's an extra step in the latter, "self defense OK => guns OK" (which I was not making an explicit evaluation on). The analogy in the GP is a false equivalence.

> There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one.

I'm not going to argue that a gun is the only or even necessarily an appreciable way to advance this in most individuals, but for many people it likely does work into this biological need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...

Sure, to unpack the intent of my original sentence a bit more:

In some societies, such as the US, the biological need for security is met by the socially acceptable practice of gun ownership.

In other societies, it is not socially acceptable to meet that biological need with the practice of gun ownership.

Before the US had a standing navy, the majority of our naval firepower (see: cannons, mortars, etc.) was privately owned.

This was accepted and understood at the time the Constitution was penned.

I don't think he's making that argument.

Also, it's not like governments use those weapons responsibly, even though they have the "right" to own them...