So, in effect, you're reading the second amendment as, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, that's a new interpretation, I have to admit. It's wrong, for sure, but it is a new one.
The second amendment does not say, "An armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Founders discussed this and ruled it out, saying that such a scheme would be "as futile as it would be injurious".
A "well regulated Militia" was necessary to the security of a free state. The Founders wished to protect the right of "the people" (not all citizens) as members of a Militia to keep and bear arms from federal infringement.
OK, with the ‘and’ I am placing in there, you are right. But if I am wrong, why didn’t the founding fathers gather all the hunting rifles and weapons that people were using back in the day, who were not members of a well regulated militia?