“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Keep and bear “arms,” plural. One gun, firearm. Two guns, firearms. Would it be constitutional to limit the number of arms an indivdual can own, as long as they’re allowed to atleast two?
no
Why not, if someone owns two guns, then they are using their constitutional right to owns arms, plural. The state has fulfilled its agreement has it not?
By setting a limit on the number, size, power, range, or deadliness you are ‘infringing’.
We need to amend the amendment, there’s no getting around it.
So, you want to redefine ‘arms’ to equal ‘firearms’ and then define a plural as equating to two? 
And you want to ignore the ‘infringed’ part as if it’s not there (you might want to look up the definition before infringing on the numbers of ‘arms’=‘firearms’ you allow by fiat).
I’m going to go with ‘no’ as the correct answer here. Was there anything else?
The good ship SS Ignoring Inconvenient Parts sailed long ago. 
How was the trip? Did you get any pictures?
No.
When you say, “Keep and bear “arms,” plural”, are you assuming that the word “arms” only refers to “firearms” but not to knives, or tomahawks, or arrows, or clubs, or spears, or hammers, or swords, or any other types of “arms”?
The constitution is not primarily a matter of the exact words, but of the case law. The case law does not support your interpretation.
Now, if there was a big public clamor for people to be limited to just two guns, it’s conceivable that the Supremes would fasten on your interpretation. But since there is no push for them to do so, I can’t imagine that happening.
One way to think about this is to consider how brief the second amendment is compared to an actual law. Laws can be hundreds or thousands of pages because of the need to avoid possible ambiguities and deal with special situations. It still turns out that laws have ambiguities, but they are fewer. Brief platitudes like the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are not taken literally, in part, because they can be twisted to mean almost anything.
The expression “to be under arms” was commonly used to mean being enlisted in the military. A soldier, for instance, who would be armed but most likely have only one firearm, say, a musket. Hence, “to bear arms” most closely means to be armed, and does not imply anything plural.
The inevitable Wiki
Could we do the same thing with the 4th amendment? Once the cops suspected you once and had to get a warrant, they fulfilled the “secure” in your house. The next time, they bust down the door every other day for random inspections. You argue. They argue that the singularity of the 4th amendment requires you only to be secure one time, not ongoing and forever.
Others are right; such a hypertechnical reading of any law/constitution has not been favored.
I don’t think it would be legal for me to have a functioning tank or ground-to-air missile. I am certain it would be illegal if I had a functioning ICBM* with nuclear war heads. There is a limit to the arms I am allowed to bear.
So, yes there is a limit that is being used, and that limit could conceivably be made more or less restricting. I don’t know if that qualifies as a “loophole”.
*I could have an old empty ICBM silo though! Who doesn’t want to live 50 feet below grade?
I’d have a hard time accepting that that’s the reasonable interpretation of the text. The right to keep arms pretty much means as many firearms as you want just as the right to free speech means you can talk as much as you want. If the government sets an upper limit on the number of guns you can own or the number of words you can speak, they’re clearly infringing upon those rights.
Or heavy artillery? Flamethrowers? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons?
Sooner or later, we spend a lot of time underground. I see no reason to be impatient.
The problem with that old canard is that it would basically be a government power(the right to form militias) listed in the Bill of Rights, which would make no sense. The articles of the Constitution already list the government’s powers.
Also, when the Constitution used “the people”, it refers to the people as individuals. The 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
This is an individual right, not a collective right, which is just another term for a government power.
And I see no reason to jump the gun.
No, the well-regulated militia kept getting in the way.
To the OP: The Constitution is not merely a contract or statute in which one is free to find loopholes, or creative interpretations, to try to construe it as supporting whatever position you wish to hold. It’s quite a bit more than that. It’s a statement of the basic principles that underlie our concept of society and how we wish to govern ourselves. It is to be understood in the way a citizen of a democracy would, not as a lawyer in court would.
Reading the Second in the way the OP proposes is no more honest or respectable than dismissing as meaningless its statement of purpose, the first half of the sentence.
Interesting question.
How many words should citizens be allowed to speak under the Freedom of Speech?