You are correct in paragraphs one and three. Paragraph two proves you are just a progressive zealot or have bought into Al Gore's (Clinton, Obama, etc.) "living Constitution" BS.
The "contemporary meaning" of any part of the Constitution is irrelevant. Using that process the Constitution could eventually mean anything. That's not the way this works. The Constitution is interpreted (Supposed to anyway. There's still Ginsberg and her cronies on the Supreme Court) by the meaning of what was written at the time. For that we must go back to the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Framers and understand how the language was written then. There's no argument here except from the progressive and radical left who are petrified of an armed citizenry.
As for your being down-voted, it's coming from Constitutionalists and others that understand that the "living/breathing" "contemporary meaning" argument is nonsense or the radical progressives who don't like your pointing out that "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" don't mean what they want them to mean.