There's really no logical argument to an unrestricted view of the text. Firstly, the claim that it is necessary to freedom is completely devoid of fact or logic. The idea that even a truly well-regulated militia will protect citizenry from a tyrannical government made sense right up until the invention of the cannon. The tank, the fighter-bomber, the laser-guided bomb and the drone were nails in the coffin. The argument is dead on arrival since armed resistance to the government would be quashed with one shot (likely a hellfire missile).

The other argument is protection from foreign invaders. To this the same general concept applies as above, with the added caveat that we're protected by the world's premiere standing military; something not provided for in the original constitution.

We as gun-owners should accept universal backgrounds, registration, licensing and insurance as a means to PROTECT our rights, by allowing some inconvenience that would erase arguments against ownership.