Is this a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment?

[billh58]

3. Adding a word that

is not there does not change anything, and the bought and paid for interpretation by the right-wing gun lobby is not what the Second Amendment actually says: "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."

Second Amendment absolutists conveniently leave out the "well regulated militia" part when they argue for unrestricted possession of weapons designed for no other purpose than to kill, and are directly responsible for the gun violence epidemic and daily mass shootings we are experiencing in this country.

Guns were invented for killing and war, have been improved over the years to become better at killing and war, and serve no other purpose than to kill and wage war. Killing game for food is an accepted practice, but it is still killing and it does not require an arsenal of weapons to kill Bambi.

Since we in this Group already know and agree that guns need to be regulated and their use restricted, the aim and goals of this Group are to discuss ways to accomplish that end. Arguments of support for the current lax regulation of lethal weapons are not welcome here.