You seem like a wonderful person and I'm sure you have some great personality traits and not just a pleasant attitude. You are obviously enlightened and it is a blessing for us for you have to post here at all!

You need to come up with something much more compelling than that to make a point (any point) because the real entity that decides what the Constitution "means" has said that the citizen's right to keep and bear arms exists independently of the 2nd Amendment.

The Supreme Court has said the right to arms (specifically the right to arms of freed slaves) "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

That means the construction of the provision is a separate entity from the pre-existing right it merely recognizes and guarantees. . . The words chosen to secure the right can not be constructed to outwardly constrict or restrict or define or constrain the right.

I have no idea what you are arguing here . . . Is the right individual, exercisable by private citizens without permission from government or is it a conditional right exercisable only in a collective, public duty organization controlled by and acting at the behest of government?

You have taken something very plain and understandable (for someone with an affinity for those once "self evident" principles) and reduced it to new age gobbledygook.