Apparently that is the opinion of Lee Gaillard who wrote an op ed piece in the Seattle Times stating such. Actually he states that "public safety" should trump the outdated 2nd amendment and he cites the upcoming Supreme Court case which will decide if the ban on handguns in Washington D.C. is constitutional. Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country and a murder rate 3.5 times higher than any state in the country. It is almost as if criminals know in advance that their victims will be unarmed.
But that lack of logic is not good enough for Mr. Galliard. He goes on to state:
The nine justices should hone their grammar skills. The introductory absolute phrase ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,") preceding the main clause sets the condition for why the people collectively had a right to keep and bear arms: to be able quickly to muster their local "well regulated Militia," individually lifting smoothbores down from over their fireplaces so they could assemble and march off to defend "the security of [their] free State" against aggressors
Um.. no, what you call an introductory absolute phrase that is a condition of the main clause is a dependent clause that serves as a justification for the main clause, but does not limit the main clause. If being part of a militia was a condition, then the wording of the main clause would not be the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Instead it would need to be the right of the people who are part of a militia to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.