I would contest that it isn't an interpretation but a direct reading based on grammar. 
I suggest reading this article which makes an analysis based just on the grammar alone. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Case in point, the article keeps the basic grammar but changes the subject as an example illustrating the point.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.' Would you then argue that the only reason to have books would be for a well schooled electorate? No.

In fact is is those wanting to restrict gun rights who are interpreting the 2nd amendment beyond that basic grammar that is contained within. My reading does not make the first half superfluous, it just makes it an example.