There are some things to consider: "The way people wrote and spoke in 1776", and the "situation the US was in as a country in 1776".
The 2nd amendment first states "the reason why", i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", for doing something, and it then states "the thing to be done or not done", which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
To me, "a well regulated militia" means "not necessarily a loosely organized group of guys doing shooting practice in the woods and calling themselves a militia, because 'hey, we had a meeting or two'."
No, "a well regulated militia" means, in 1776, what is meant TODAY by a "legally authorized police force, a police department, or a County Sheriff's department" or a "legally authorized military force" (i.e. Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, etc.) In 1776, the US had trouble to maintain a standing army, because it costs money. The UK was the rich Top Dog of the world, in 1776.
Likewise, the USA of 1776 was for several decades in a state of war or rebellion with the United Kingdom of England. Back then, the US had good reason to believe that the UK would strike back and re-conquer those darn rebel Americans at any moment (as proven by the raid in 1812 by the Brits, that burned down the White House, 36 years after 1776).
For that reason the ability to pull together forces that "already had arms" was an important factor in writing the 2nd amendment the way it was written. This was the easiest cheapest method they had back then to raise an army. But things are different today. We got Police, we got Sheriffs, the National Guard, we got the US Armed Forces.
Your own so-called "well-regulated militias" are no longer being called up to serve, as such. Can you see that? I can.
I know that fact will make you sad, because anyone wants to be part of some "history-changing" movement, and everyone wants to believe that what they are doing is the absolute right thing. I get that. I know you won't like my reasoning, because you are a true believer in the "mindset" of 2nd amendment fans.
You think that your guns ("those toys") are what keep a state free of tyranny? Well, let me see. From your mindset, it seems likely that you think that "Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama" were trying to set up a tyrannical state. So, what would happen if you used your guns to "end the tyranny"? You'd get the death penalty or life in prison, depending on the state you live in! And for some folks on the left, "Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 and Trump" were the ones who
were trying to set up a state of tyranny. If they used guns to "end the tyranny", they'd get the same death or life in prison sentence. So it is not altogether THAT easy to "keep a state, a country free from tyranny" just by owning guns, don't you think?
Todays tyrannical leaders get "elected", somehow, by "pushing the right (or wrong) buttons of the electorate. (Maybe I should not mention that Hitler was initially elected into power, because it's always wrong to mention him. oops. It's like mentioning underwear in church.)
Like Detective Columbo, there is one more thing
"Let's look at what the 2nd amendment DOES NOT SAY":
It DOES NOT say "A slightly unwell de-regulated marauding militia, being necessary to the paranoia of a weird state, the right of crazy mass-murderers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
Say what you will, but I am 100% certain that it never said that. It just didn't! No, no, no! Seven times no!
So, WHY didn't it say that? Because, WHATEVER the actual 2nd amendment means, it could not have meant that "crazy people shall be allowed and encouraged to have guns to kill others, especially innocent kids, like a freakin' monster from hell".
And WHY could it not have meant that?
Because laws must be interpreted for the most reasonable, most beneficial, most likely INTENT!
Because LAW WITHOUT REASON IS FOR NAUGHT!
LAW WITHOUT REASON IS WORTH NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, DE NADA! Alright, I stop yelling.
Whenever laws have unintended side-effects, any reasonable and lawful governing body is under an obligation to change the laws in such a way that the "unintended effect" goes away. Of course, I am idealist when I say that, since wherever I look, laws are being made by short-sided, and possibly corrupt lawmakers who somehow never get the time, the money or the votes to fix the laws they have made. (Similar to software companies, or the pharmaceutical industry, etc....)
Thus, because of all of the above, you are not convincing me that your ideas are right. They may sound great, strong, manly and patriotic, but once you think about them, they are not all that smart. And that's why I think that crazy people should not have guns. I hope I made myself clear.
As long as you are not insane, you can keep your guns, but please lock them up. As soon as you turn insane, please turn yourself in!
You can see why I am not a politician or a lawyer. Too effing honest. "Vote Fritz, because at least he is honest", or "Vote Fritzie, because he means well" are not the best campaign slogans for myself, but that's all I got in the short run.