Is this a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment?

[lastlib]

5. THREE Commas.

The gun-humpers like to take two of them out, especially the one after "arms".

It makes a significant difference in the logical meaning of the amendment. With three commas, the phrase "A well-regulated militia" is made the superior clause, thus the focus of the sentence. The phrases "being necessary to the security of a free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are SUBORDINATE clauses and are thus modifiers to the superior clause. Take out those two clauses, and you still have a complete sentence: "A well-regulated militia...shall not be infringed."

Completely different logic to it than the bullet-heads want to give it. No, the interpretation supplied by the OP is not correct--it is essentially identical to the interpretation of the bullet-head crowd.