Wrong. The 2nd justifies nuts carrying guns like the 1st Amendment justifies child pornographers. A right to keep and bear arms is only recognizable and protected for lawful and legitimate activities.

Wrong. There are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books but laws only modify the behavior of the law-abiding. Criminals, by their very nature do not obey or abide the law. Using the behavior of the criminal to benchmark the actions of the law-abiding is illegitimate.

The declaratory clause (the first "half" of the Amendment) is not creating conditions or qualifications on the right, it is only telling everyone why the pre-existing right is being secured. Militia in the Revolutionary period were defined as anyone capable of bearing arms and working in concert.

Madison in discussing militia (as set apart from a "standing army" of "regulars") explained the ratios of "whole souls" and 'standing army" and the militia. In a nation of 3 million souls (circa late 1780's) Madison said an army not greater than 30,000 could be maintained. He said that this force would be "opposed" by a half million citizens with arms in their hands.

Those ratios remain spot-on today . . . We have 300 million "total souls," 2.9 million in our armed forces and 65 million citizens with "arms in their hands."

That statement demonstrates your shallow understanding of the general principles at work here.

There are no conditions established by the 2nd. The declaratory clause is not even a sentence. It commands no action, it binds no action, it neither creates or demands any structure be in place . . .

The founders were linguists and were well acquainted with Latin and their writings show this. The construction, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is an absolute phrase (specifically an absolute ablative).

An absolute phrase might explain why what follows happens or perhaps why it may be prudent to take the following action but it does not change or condition or create a dependency on what follows. Let's examine a simple one:

All things considered, it’s not a bad idea.

Whether or not the idea is bad or not does not depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered or that anything must be considered to in fact decide if the idea is bad or not.

Here, try these on for size; let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions into sentences constructed like the 2nd Amendment with an absolute phrase preceding the actionable phrase . . .

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.

Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work?
Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "deautoed" because they do not work?
Can the people only drive on a well maintained road system?
Can they only drive on those roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?
Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route be the only one deemed legal?

A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Can only registered voters (the electorate) keep and read books?
Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read?
Can only those with an government certified IQ above 100 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books?

And one just for fun . . .

A pretty blue sky being necessary for the enjoyment of a picnic, the right of the people to keep and eat hams shall not be infringed.

Can the people only eat hams at a picnic?
Can hams only be eaten and picnics only be held under pretty blue skies?

Expecting to fully understand the 2nd with just a simple reading of the words applying modern definitions to the lexicon of the founders leads to the statements I'm rebutting. Jefferson speaks directly to this present state of 2nd Amendment "interpretation."

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Doing that completely extinguishes your points.