> The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia."

There's not too much to debate there; many militias existed at the time. Every state had them! Further, every border was susceptible to foreign aggression, and the frontier borders were too vast to be policed or patrolled by soldiers to protect civilians from war or banditry. Civilians needed to be able to protect themselves, and the militias needed people who could shoot prior to enlisting, as the nation was constantly under threat.

> The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system

This is also not broadly true, barring some choice quotes intended to stir up support for the war. It was intended as a last resort against a tyrannical government. The assassinations of presidents have no legal foundation within the Constitution itself, despite it happening. Likewise, American gun culture doesn't promote assassinating politicians, but rather being prepared in case of the fall of the Constitution itself.

France would be a much better example of a country that embraces violence as a matter of course in politics.

> There's not too much to debate there;

There is plenty to debate here. I don't know what the prevalent interpretation is here, but I do know it's a fact that the meaning is debated.

I don't know why you're saying otherwise.

For example, after 2 minutes of googling: https://www.isba.org/sections/bench/newsletter/2017/04/whatd...