It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context. I would, for example, interpret this as meaning that the government can (in fact, should) regulate arms, but can't forbid carrying them.
Then you would be wrong. You have a right to be wrong, but thankfully you have no right to force that on others.
Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I have no claim to, nor interest in, forcing my interpretation onto anybody else.
Nor do you.
As I said:
Many many people have argued many many other interpretations.
...[quotes from D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision]
You selectively skipped over a vast swatch of the opinion. They very clearly wrote that the second clause of the amendment is to be interpreted in light of the first clause. That's why the decision spend so much time discussing the first part: it's a single-sentence amendment, and you can't ignore part of the sentence and say you'll only pay attention to the other part. But the decision also clearly stated that the initial clause does not negate the "shall not be infringed" part and cannnot be used as a justification to write regulations that negate the second part.
That makes sense to me.
They went on to say that the DC regulations, by requiring guns in a home to be unloaded, essentially did constitute a ban on having and carrying arms (since an unloaded gun is not "arms" in any real sense of the word. The DC law didn't have any exception saying "well, you're allowed to load the gun if a burglar breaks into your home.")
Seems like a good decision. It is perfectly consistent with what I just said: regulating is allowed, but banning is not, with the clarification that the regulation can't be regulations that are de facto bans.
If (part of) the 1st Amendment had been written "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." would you just as quickly attempt to justify banning literature? Or would you support regulation if the government only kept books out of the hands of those who do not vote?
You just switched from the word "regulating" to the word "banning".
This is why it is impossible to have any conversation with gun nuts: if a mention of any form of regulation is brought up, the nuts say "you can't ban our guns!"