That isn’t a constitutional argument, that is a stare decisis argument.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Here is what is said above that, where it is clearly a constitutional argument, because it references the constitution as evidence- not other courts.

I’ll buy that when one these “conservative legal scholars” aka moron federalists can produce a single primary source document that uses the phrase bear arms outside of a strictly military context involving uniformed, regimented troops, and instead refers expressly to an individual right of self defense.

Otherwise, it’s not ambiguous.

It is far from ambiguous. The first half tells you why the right exists and only part of why. The second half is the right itself, which is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Security of a free state.

By justification I mean the reason for the right. The right being the right to bear arms.

Yes. It. Does. Just because the common definition for militia changed doesn’t mean that the meaning of the writing with the definition of the time is different because you want it to be.

Yes, as we all know words never change. Have a gay day.

There are other, primary sources, that back up this interpretation. The Federalist Papers is a good starting point.

I don’t know the real answer, but it seems that defining a collective right as the second in a list of nine other individual rights doesn’t seem logical. I, personally, believe the individual right is what was intended. I also believe that over 200 years have passed and it needs to be updated. Arguing the semantics isn’t going to help anyone and simply attempting to re-interpret what’s supposed to be a living document is absurd. That being said, it would take a lot more people being a lot more rational to ever have a hope of making those changes.

Read the first sentence again.

That’s funny, because it looks to me like the PEOPLE were guaranteed a right.

You should be able to but there are infringements in place like the originally excessively expensive $200 tax stamp for fully automatic weapons.

The constitution is supposed to be a fluid system, designed to be ratified and easy to apply to modern standards, if the country would actually do it, to create a better life for everyone I the United States.

No, that is one ideology called the “living constitution”. But there are many who oppose that ideology.

The revolutionary war was won with the help of private warships. That would have been well known to the founding fathers who wrote the bill of rights. Do you think that they would suddenly not want the citizens to be able to defend the homeland because guns are scary?

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the “operative clause.” The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to “the right of the people.” When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.

https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

You are either disingenuous or an idiot.

The only “restriction” there are relevant to control was registration. But that wasn’t to control that was to require you had at least one weapon. If your job requires you have steel-toed boots, that doesn’t limit your ownership of other boots.