"Second Amendment: 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."

Why does that not say only that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", as you say it does? Wouldn't that have been simpler if that's what was meant? Or does the additional verbiage have an intention and meaning?

What is the purpose of the words "well regulated Militia", and "security of a free State" unless they bear on an armed citizenry engaged in the defense of the country?

What does "well regulated" mean in this context?

Could that be interpreted to be an attempt to keep these arms in the hands of trained, focussed people in the service of their country?

And out of the hands of folks with paranoid beliefs and poor impulse control who are over-compensating for poor self-esteem and a sense of powerlessness, that not being deemed a constructive purpose for guns?

Why fear ANY laws relative to gun control if those laws would be unconstitutional?

Arf