Congratulations and slow sarcastic clap.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

And you did it again. You keep leaving off the first part of the sentence. It is meaningless with out the first part. The State depends on the individual and the individual on the State.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

The entire sentence is a contract that the State has with the individual. The word infringe means to break a contract. The State allows private ownership of guns so during an invasion, the citizens can be called up to fight invaders or internal disturbances. If the citizens threaten the State with their weapons, that nullifies the contract and the State will react with force, martial law if necessary, which usually means suspension of amendments starting with the 4th.

And historical context that supports mine.

They used a civilian militia to stop the rebellions you referenced earlier. The Founding Fathers were cheap. Have you ever been to Mount Vernon? George Washington's home is painted to look like Stone but it's just wood. The US had no money for a professional army. They raised an army to put down the Rebellions that were caused for the most part over taxation. There was no professional army because they had no money. The 2nd Amendment was partly a cost cutting tool.

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said that The Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years so we don't become slaves to the previous generation. What was meant as a cost saving measure and partly an overreaction to Britain's attempt to disarm the Colonists between 1774-1775 is not necessarily relevant to modern society. Handguns and rifles won't stand up to modern military weapons. And the idea that a militia could some grow in size and strength to threaten a tyrannical state is absurd.

Please, don't write me back unless you actually have something to say.