The Second Amendment doesn't have a caveat saying only "free individuals." You're reading that in. That's fine. We're agreed that it's OK to read things into the Second Amendment.
No, that's actually incorrect.
You are assuming a literal interpretation. In religious terms, you are assuming constitutionalists are fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. You two are NOT in agreement. In fact, YOU are the one reading things into the 2nd Amendment, not Freyasman. Not me.
You are reading a suicide pact into the 2nd Amendment when there is none. Using a fundamentalist's interpretation you are assuming a counter argument demands that ALL people--free men, criminals, felons, prisoners, combatants, invaders, Soviets, Nazis, Catholics and Lutherans--must be allowed to carry any weapon they deem necessary. That is not only ridiculous but most certainly NOT the original intent of the founders.
The 2nd Amendment contains the words:
being necessary to the security of a free State
So we can immediately exclude prisoners since arming prisoners would, in fact, HARM the security of a free State. Duh! Similar things can be said about invaders, Soviets, etc.
So you are NOT in agreement that it's okay to read things into the 2nd Amendment. You want to read a suicide pact in where none exists. I (and other constitutionalists) recognize the necessity of the 2nd Amendment to the security of a free State and further recognize that arming prisoners and invaders is not only
not demanded by but would run
counter to the 2nd Amendment.
So drop the false equivalence of your views with every other constitutionalist's.