Here is the Second Amendment word for word as it could be found on any political source- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
When it comes to militias, I along with any other willing patriot in this country can join the largest free-standing militia in this world- the American people, and the definition of the word militia took on slightly different meaning back then as it does today. Any militia could be subjected to being regulated, not individual citizens. The last part does specifically say the right for the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, with the key words being "shall not be infringed". What part of that don't you folks not understand? Furthermore, what the hell is the term ammos--ual supposed to mean? That sounds like hate speech to me. I can only wonder what the outcry would be like if someone was arguing about marriage laws and negatively used the word homos--ual, so I don't see any difference with the word you used above. Sounded awfully hateful and bigoted to me, where are the progressive sjw's at a time like this to speak out against such blatant hatred?

If our forefathers wanted everybody to have all the guns they wanted to the 2nd amendment would have said " The right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed". That's all, the fact that it says anything else means they didn't want everybody to have guns. These people were using quill pens with bottles of India ink, They didn't write anymore words than they had to.