The infringement of regulations

In the mindset of the founders and their time, why was the 2A necessary? Clearly it was for militias to fight the British or any other threat. I'm inclined to believe it was also about those militias putting down slave rebellions. Now- given the times- what it is NOT about is the founders seeing a need for men to be running around with guns all the time, just because they felt men should always be armed. Every see any paintings of our founders going to church or dinner, armed? With hunting as THE way to put meat on the table, at the time, it was obviously not about hunting or any efforts of the time to eliminate that. And looking at the way we stole this country from the Indians, it should be very clear that every farmer at the time also needed guns to protect himself and to prevail over the natives. So, people need to stop thinking of the founders as fortune tellers or men of supernatural vision who looked into the future and saw a time when every American should be armed to the teeth...against other Americans. I'm pretty sure they saw better things for this nation than the macho bullshit of every accountant walking around with a fully automatic rifle and a couple of handguns. Full auto wasn't a misprint. What part of "...shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Gun nutters misunderstand the entire phrase. They think it means NO regulation, at all!  What part of "well regulated militia" are they missing?  A writer for Guns & Ammo magazine was recently fired because he stated that American gun owners should realize that ".... all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be." That's a fact. Here's the 2A in it's entirety: "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." So, "well regulated" is in there and so is "shall not be infringed". "Pick one" is not in there however.  The G and A writer,  Dick Metcalf, angered a lot of the readers and, worse perhaps, the gun manufacturers who financially back the magazine by saying there is a need for regulation. Fightin' words? Guns are a business. They are the only business seemingly Constitutionally endorsed. Well, no, they're not but, that's really the point here. Left to their own devices, gun manufacturers would love no restrictions on their product and, like any business would, they would sure love the wording of the most important document in the nation's history as their marketing and legal department! So, they have people running around screaming, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!" and even acting like they'd like to go to war with America if the gun makers are infringed. That's some customer loyalty not seen since Tareyton asked their smokers if they'd rather fight than switch. It's one thing to have the Bible so open to interpretation when it was co-authored by so many, so long ago and translated from languages that no one really speaks any more. It's really crazy to adapt that to 21st century life. It seems to me a word here and a phrase there  could be a real game changer if interpreted loosely. same with a couple hundred years past, in English, in our Constitution. Many people today cannot comprehend "regulated" and "shall not be infringed". We need to make it a bit more in tune with the current times. See, I seriously doubt that our Founders envisioned a future of machine guns anymore than they thought of airplanes and space travel. Quotes from "Shane" aside, guns were necessary, if not cantankerous, tools of the time. I can't see where the founders envisioned the need for guns ever being questioned except, perhaps, in a we might need militias in the future to protect us from other countries, kind of way. And frankly, some folks think the militia wording was included for putting down slave rebellions.  http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery I think it's pretty clear they figured Americans- of the non-slave and non-native variety- white people- would always need guns. But, they didn't delineate it as such now, did they?  Why? I think it was because they were talking about militias. That other stuff was a given. It took years to write the Constitution. It wasn't because they were arguing about whether slaves should have guns or not. I think they all agreed on that. Golly, what part of "...shall not be infringed" did they not get? That verbiage, concise as it is, is also wide open. Full Metal Jacket gun nuts think the 2A provides for armed rebellion if "government gets too big for its britches". I gather that's how they see the 'militia" part? Sheesh, they must have translated from the original ancient Hebrew written between the lines in invisible ink to get that. Well then it should follow that "...shall not be infringed" would seem to dictate that prisoners can have guns. And babies.  And insane people. Criminals too. Everybody! Well, except slaves, of course as they were but 3/5ths of a person at the time. But, other than slaves, what part of "...shall not be infringed" are folks NOT understanding when they deny babies, criminals and others guns?  It seems to me the 2A seems to be saying: "GUNS FOR ALL AND ALL FOR GUNS!!! WOO HOO!!!!!"  Not allowing folks to have fully automatic rifles and flame throwers would seem to infringe as well. These people think paperwork in the purchase of a weapon or in order to carry a weapon is infringement. In short, ANY regulation at all is infringement. If it "goes without saying" that prisoners (and all) can't have guns then, guess what? That's regulation! If you (rightly) think that prisoners give up the right to bear arms in prison because of laws and common sense, that's regulation AND infringement! Complicated? Only if you want it to be. And only if you realize that, if guns are your business, you want complicated. Complicated is good for business. The vagueness of the Second Amendment turned out to be marketing genius. Regulation. How can law and order be such a bad thing for some people? That's business! And business is good. It's all in how you interpret it.