Second amendment interpretation argument outline

First, let me say that in case there is an inclination to mistake this, the argument that those who made the second amendment intended to reason with us the necessity of militia, although has a relation of supporting each other with the "being" argument, like I stated in a previous post, can exist independently of that "being" argument.  

In dealing with the interpretation of the second amendment I have been trying to make the following arguments:

1- The "being" argument.
2- The intention to reason with us (instead of forcing the believe) argument.
3- The sufficiency argument.

These arguments may be made to support each other or exist independently. Support for these arguments is being made in a fragmented way through posts made on this blog.

Also, do not assume that because I am arguing about interpreting the second amendment I think it sounds reasonable or makes any sense to continue to follow something that doesn't account for the difference in arms and weapon of that time and our time. No matter what the second amendment says, you are probably not less than seventy or eighty years late to changing the situation while the bloodshed consequence of that continued and the country became poisoned deeper and deeper with the spread of guns.But clearly one may not refuse also showing that the second amendment itself has cancelled itself if it is the case.