And if a frog had wings he wouldn't drag his a$$ on the ground. We don't have those restrictions on books, so what's your point?
"and anyone not a member and/or not acting under its arbitrary rules may be denied the right to read or own books? Insane! Preposterous! Absurd!"
They MAY be denied if the state constitution allows it. Hey, if it's that important to the people of the state, PASS A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STOP YOUR WHINING ALREADY!!
"Book clubs only viably arise from the right of the people to own and read books in general"
Sure. And if the state wishes to protect an individual right to own and read books, they are free to do so.
But if you're talking about federal protection of books, they only protect the books as they relate to the formation of the Book Clubs themselves.
My point is your analogy leads to an absurdity - which exactly matches the same absurdidty led to by your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Thought it might shed some light on the flaw in your reasoning - apparently not.
So that state judges won't enforce it? Besides, my current state has one, so does the state of my birth, and the only other state I've lived in, other than the 6 weeks of my AFROTC field training, also has one. They all protect a "right to keep and bear arms". My current state says "all citizens" shall have it, my birth state says it belongs to "all persons", and that other state says it is "the right of a citizen".
They all still have gun laws which infringe on the RKBA, although not as onerous ones as they once did, which I'm sure saddens you greatly.