Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
"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."

(well-regulated militia) seems to be a package deal...
Honestly, the gun laws that exist (if they were executed to their full extent) would suffice for "well-regulated."
Says you. But surely you would agree the term is vague enough to include a whole galaxy of interpretations.

However the entirety of the first line is only proving a claim,
"A well regulated Militia = being necessary to the security of a free State"
premise: a well-regulated militia necessitates a secure state.
premise: Citizen's being able to own firearms is necessary for the formation of militia
conclusion: therefore citizen's will have the right to own firearms.
But that's no longer true. We have the Army for that. If the right to bear arms was intended for the purpose of providing security (since a regular Army capable of defending the nation did not exist at that time), and not ensuring that people can bear arms for it's own sake, then it seems you've really opened yourself up to one of two counter arguments:

1.) The amendment is arcane. It guarantees a right to do something for a purpose that no longer exists, therefore the right itself no longer exists. Or,
2.) The right only exists within the context of national (or state) security. In other words, Army personnel and reservists only.

Fortunately for you, the way you're characterizing the amendment is not the way it's generally be interpreted. It's always, to my knowledge (I'm far from an expert, but this is my understanding), been taken to guarantee an individual's right to bear arms for their own personal security or use, and not just within the context of national security or militias. That language is not in the amendment itself, but that is the weight of judicial interpretation until now.

the latter portion explicitly states the right, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." this being the case, the first portion can only be used to provide historical context as to why the right was explicitly stated. Regardless the constitution was supposed to be a breathing document, if the right to bear arms is no longer important to the american republic then the constitution should be amended. The historical context behind the initial framing should not be cited as the primary modern reasoning behind the right itself.
That depends on your style of judicial interpretation, but once again I think you're backing yourself into a corner. Generally it's those who care about the original intent of the 2nd amendment who come down on the side of a broad reading of gun rights (which you're in favor of). Those who don't care as much about the amendment's historical context are the ones who generally view it as arcane and take a more favorable view of strict gun control.