No, the "restrictive" clause of Amendment II was inserted to remove all doubt....

   The declared reason that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", was that of "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". The declared reason, however, was [and is] not the only reason that "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed". For "a well-regulated militia" was already within the Constitutionally delegated authority of both the Federal and State governments. And, that was the only "power" the Federal government was Constitutionally delegated the "authority" over: arms in the hands of the organized "militia" - and NOT "the people" at large.

   No, the "restrictive" clause of Amendment II was inserted to remove all doubt that our governments, especially the Federal, had been delegated any authority over the pre-existing right of We The People to "keep and bear arms". And that "restrictive clause" was demanded to be inserted in order to make that fact perfectly clear to our hired servants. Especially in light of the recent actions of the Massachusetts State government at that time, which had been carried out in order to punish those that had participted in Shay's Rebellion. For those specific State exexcutive and legislative "actions", had almost brought on another American revolution. And for one of the very same reasons that the original Revolution had been fought against the British.

   If the contention above were not the actual facts of the matter, then the right demanded to be secured from infringment would have had no reason to be "secured" in a "bill of rights". For the Constitutionally delegated power to "regulate" arms, in the hands of the organized militia, had already existed. And the original Constitution never would have been ratified by the States to begin with.