Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[stanc]

That's the key issue. If the Second Amendment were not meant to protect the supply of weapons for the militia, why does it have the prefatory clause?
If it was intended to protect the use of guns for sporting and other civilian use, it seems like it would simply say, "The right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed."
Instead it specifies "Arms" (which in the context of the time meant military weapons), and links their possession and use to "well regulated" organized militia units.

The prefatory clause may be the reason but it has nothing to do with the right of the people as stated.

The prefatory clause may be the reason for the RKBA but it has nothing to do with the RKBA??? Seriously?

Saying the militia is not needed anymore that therefore the right is not needed anymore is just an infringement of that right.

That's not true. An infringement would only occur by enactment of a law or regulation that adversely affects the RKBA. Merely saying the militia is not needed wouldn't affect the RKBA.

It's also not what I said.

Arms are arms. Nothing links their possession to "well regulated" militia units.

Sentence construction of the Second Amendment links the militia with the RKBA.

I think this is correct and obviously the Supreme Court agrees.

I think that's not exactly what the court said.