"a well regulated militia ..."

According to the Supreme Court, presidents Biden and Obama, Bernie and HRC. It was actually put into the Democratic Party platform. Your position is not even in line with mainstream Democratic thought much less the country as a whole.

What happened to the well-regulated militia part of the 2nd A? The mainstream version of the 2nd A seems to have landed us in a mess. It is time tr rethink things and go outside the generally accepted.

You, the OP and many others are simply misinterpreting what it actually means.

Here is something to consider - if the founding fathers meant what you think the militia clause means, why, in the entire history of the US, has there never been a law linking gun ownership to militia service? Can you show me a single instance where an American was forced to give up their guns because they were not members of a militia?

to defend their communities and to form posses and such. maybe if these mass shooters were part of such communities they might not be so alienated and would recognize the members of their fellow citizens as more than moving targets

well regulated might not mean, in every case, disarmed.

regulated in the sense of laws and regulations is a more recent meaning of the word.

?crop=1290%2C1290%2C0%2C158&resize=1290%2C1290&order=crop%2Cresize

?quality=75&strip=all&w=1600&h=900&crop=1

The 2A allows you all the freedom in the world to pass the laws needed to ensure those men can't carry assault weapons in public.

One very different than what would be the modern read. They argue that in 1700s in that context it would be more synonymous with capable, well trained, or even well armed. In digging into it, that argument might hold some water.

However, the 'well trained' interpretation does offer an interesting avenue to restriction. Require the nuts to train and demonstrate proficiency before they can own an assault weapon. Would add months of delay to buying one and a lot of them probably wouldn't want to put in the work.