And you keep missing the point.
No, you're missing the point. It's an entire sentence. Try talking to a lawyer and have them parse the sentence for you cuz you have proved that you are incapable of reading. Your understanding of the sentence is astonishingly facile. The clause front- loading the sentence is there for a reason. Otherwise it would not be written. You ignore half the sentence and then you keep writing all this unrelated drivel in an attempt to cherry pick history for support.
n·fringe inˈfrinj/Submit verb actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright" synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. "his legal rights were being infringed" synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More
The words "state" and "security" are also in there for a REASON. Not only that but the word "infringe" is in there as well.
The only right specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is no mention of any rights granted to the militia or to the state. There is no mention of the militia or the state outside the context of granting the people the right to keep and bear arms.
You literally have no argument.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't involved in either the writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He was in France at the time.
He was also the 3rd president. Are you saying the President is not allowed to have an opinion about the Constitution? James Madison, the 2nd president thought the civilian army sucked after the war of 1812. Remember the White House being burned to the ground? George Washington the 1st president thought the civilian troops sucked. That's why he recommended a professional army during the early rebellions cuz the civilians sucked. The 2nd Amendment was a reaction of the Revolutionary War and it was quickly realized that the people were unnecessary. They didn't change the document because there wasn't a mass shooting epidemic like we have now.
Handguns and rifles are modern military weapons. Unless you were actually referring to things like tanks and drones and rehashing the tired argument of "how is your AR-15 going to protect you from that, huh?"
This is not an argument. All you're doing is saying, "you're wrong cuz 1776." The Army would use graduated levels of violence and in the worst case could firebomb entire cities of American insurgents. If you look at the Civil War, the US Army defeated the South. And the South was beyond the capabilities of just a militia. You are living in libertarian fantasy land.
In which case I would ask you what is the likelihood that Farmers armed with hunting rifles, as you yourself described them, could stand up to the world's foremost army backed by thousands of German reinforcements and win?
Britain had been fighting the Seven Years War and had massive debt. Mercenaries are not going to be enthusiastic fighters as the primary opponents. Yet more uninformed Cherry Picking. If locals fighting for a way of life are always so victorious against aggressors, then why did the Confederate States lose the Civil War? The modern professional US Army would absolutely dominate a militia. The only way the militia can really fight back is the First Amendment and try to draw out Army and civilian sympathizers. You're just simply ignoring reality if you truly think that armed civilians CAN influence or oppose a government they feel is out of line through FORCE.
You seem to have a basic understanding of high school history, but the rest of it is just libertarian garbage. Please, take one of your guns, stick it up your asshole, and pull the trigger.