You're using circular reasoning here. Just because the right is currently infringed doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. That's like saying that if some people's right to vote is infringed, there really isn't a right to vote.
> There's also the Second Amendment specifically noting a "well-regulated Militia".
"well regulated" meant "in good working order" at the time the BoR was written. The operative clause is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which is a pretty strong statement.
> The disastrous War on Drugs created the drug cartels.
What do you think a new "war on guns" will do?
> Guns easily obtained in the US. That's how the drug trade works: drugs into the US, money and guns out.
Sometimes the US Government gives guns to the cartels which are ostensibly illegal for US civilians to own! [1]
> a problem literally no one else has.
The US isn't even close to the most violent country per capita. Other countries with less recognition of the right to keep and bear arms just resort to other forms of violence [2]. The "assault weapons" people are very concerned about are used in less than 300 homicides per year. More people are killed with hands and fists than all rifles (a subset of which are deemed "assault weapons") [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
[3]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...