Let me be frank with you

I have maintained from considerable time ago that your acceptance and toleration of the second amendment despite how that makes no sense since the existence of weapons and army machinery of the thirties or even much earlier of past century comes from that same psychological need manifesting itself too much in this country which is finding an identity. Despite that I myself was not counting on finding anything to support my position against gun mess here in the second amendment so I did not acquaint myself with its text until probably a little over a year ago. Who would have expected that complex is not only behind surrendering and not doing anything against the situation but also the reason behind bringing the problem to begin with? So, when I read the amendment it was like a shock to me. Does it really say what it is saying and those people here still force themselves into this mess?

The part that mainly attracted my attention was the one in the middle stating "being necessary to the security of a free state". Nevertheless, I do not wish that I had read that amendment before the date of the case of District of Colombia v. Heller. Why? Because I thought so strongly the part quoted above of the amendment should have stopped the gun mess here that I thought the argument against the connection between the beginning part with the operative clause is the one I would more probably face until I read the opinion of that case which showed that I do not need to account for such possibility. But,Again ,despite having the theory I stated at the begging ,when I read the opinion of that case, only months ago, expecting to find what would reduce the shock of reading the amendment, I, instead became even more shocked with how weak it sounded to me. I could not find an answer to why the part quoted above was not understood to allow judgment based on the time in which one lives and in turn declaring that that amendment no longer fits its purpose with the weapons of our time and I am still waiting for an answer to why this clear thing was ignored.