Censorship is something that has come up against the 1st amendment thanx to our fake potus' deflections on his authoritarian incompetence.

What I'd like is some input on justifying the 2nd amendment without its militia context, essentially granting any villiage idiot or town terror absolute permit to accumulate a personal arsenal of military grade weaponry to the extent of their ability to acquire it without limitation, subject to accountability only after flagrant abuse resulting in physical harm to others.
What exactly is the purpose of the second minus its clearly delineated and obsolete rationale?

Well, second-amendment people regard self-defense as a natural right, and many would put hunting in that category as well. One thus has a right to the necessary means. In the case of self-defense, it is typically pointed out that a defender should not have to face a better-armed criminal.

I don't know that hunting game is a "natural" right any more than impregnating any female slower than a given males' ability to catch them is a natural right. Otherwise, Wildlife husbandry is an important aspect to any permitted responsible hunting program and I have no objections whatsover to fostering responsible mentoring of such.

There is something fundamentally wrong with having to defend oneself mainly against fellow citizens because the culture and laws give them unlimited access to offensive arms. Unfortunately, that is my reason for keeping them here. Someone will always be better armed, but just a Mossberg and buckshot is formidable home defense against most in the event of a hostile confrontation. Scalia saw the right to own and use a handgun for household defense under the 2nd, nothing further.