My first second amendment reading

Although I did not know what the content of the second amendment is until less
than a year ago, I felt strongly about a different interpretation for why gun ownership
was allowed than what seems to be the way it is usually used in gun access related
discussions. I used to think while I hear people here mention the second amendment
that those who wrote the constitution were trying to safeguard against a return of
a tyranny or undemocratic system while some here think or act as if it was for their
enjoyment or gun fascination. Probably because I myself came from a tyranny, I felt
as if I am closer to the intentions of those who wrote parts like this in the constitution than many people here understanding otherwise. I was ready to argue for my interpretation or reasoning even if the second amendment was stating just simply that there is a right for gun ownership and I actually was not expecting something very different than that. Nevertheless, probably less than seven months ago I thought why don't I myself take a look at what this second amendment is actually saying. When I read its beginning "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." it was like a shock to me. I kept wondering did they really say that? Have I failed in understanding it because of a less than sufficient second language skills?After a while I came closer to realizing that this is again just another example of  how those who want to interpret or use something according to their desire may do so with anything.

It is unbelievable that all the gun mess in this country happened despite the existence
of such phrase at the beginning of the second amendment. From the time when
you may be able to do a comparable damage by throwing the firearm itself on someone rather than shooting him with it, those who wrote that amendment put an effort to tell
you that we are not allowing these things for just the fun of having them. Frankly speaking it is hard not to have some admiration for how they cared about adding
such reasoning from a time like that. It was a time where the notion of individual
power in contrast with state power for protection was the dominant and mostly the
only option because of the weakness of the state to do that like it is in our days here.

Even from the view at that time, if they intended for the gun situation to be at the mess
it has been at our time why did they even bother themselves to put such a phrase at the beginning? Why didn't they just state the right to firearms ownership without adding any reasoning to it? Look at it, they are talking in terms of a "state" not "individuals". Based on that part one may think about two reasons for firearm ownership and they are to protect a free state from an inside danger by changing into a tyranny and to protect a free state from invasion by outside. For people who have just made a young system they don't know how long it or the values they care about in it will last, they were in much more need for such safeguard than people in later years. In any case, with building and making a modern army, especially one like that of this country, both of the reasons mentioned above no longer exist. You made your choice by deciding to have an army. You cannot have it both ways. This means the two things that were needed for the reasoning to accept the existence of firearms as a compromise despite the harm they can do to individuals even at the time that amendment was written are no longer here at our time while the level of the harm on individuals these firearms can do is significantly much higher.