Utterly Astonishing

I am surprised, in our current age, that anyone had the guts to undo an unconstitutional law. I know some of my readers don't agree about the Second Amendment, but it is what it is. I have honestly wondered how they can muddle the interpretation. It seems quite clear to me---when you look at the ORIGINAL text.

When it was written and ratified, the amendment read, "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." Each clause is standing alone. The more current version reads "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." This makes the most important part (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) into a parenthetical which implies that the militia---necessary for a free state---would be the only reason people could bear arms. Maybe commas shouldn't be added where they weren't originally present...?

Also, I'd like to point out that DC has (had) some of the strictest gun laws, yet has also one of the (if not the) highest rate of crime in the country. Something to ponder.