Their argument is specious

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

Reason gun nuts arguing that the regulated militia is not integral to the Second.

Unfortunately for these bozos it exists, the actual wording, and remains easily interpreted as a right, and expectation that bearer of arms have regulated use of them.  I expect a bearer of arms to be a ergulated cop or a registered user of the gun or the gun is grandfathered.

As long as I have the wording, I do not need to listen to gun nuts. Nor do I have to pack the court, I have the literal phrase, all I need.

Regulated is the dominant term, the right to bear follows since regulated militia implies the manufacture and ownership of arms. Right to bear is unnecessary, has no meaning. I have the words, the logic, screw the gun nuts I will see you in court. If the phrase is no good then how about the 14th and the sanctity of government debt? I would like to toss that.