alt Hacker NewsInteresting interpretation given the the 2nd Amendment gives the right to "a well regulated militia" and not to individuals including crazed yahoos and criminals. Sadly for millions of butchered Americans, US courts have agreed with your interpretation.
No, it does not. What it states is: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
(thus shedding light on the government's interest in the matter, since anything not illegal is legal by default)
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
(thus confirming the right of people - which includes crazed yahoos, and excludes some but not all criminals - not the government, to have weapons)
This is the current understanding within American jurisprudence. People are of course free to disagree with it, but when it comes to laws, the government's understanding of what the law means takes precedence both de jure and de facto.
The Bill of Rights does not enumerate what a citizen is and is not allowed to do, but rather lays out a number of cases in a non-exhaustive manner in which it restricts the government from infringing on liberties that are understood to have pre-existed it.