The phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," does not in any way imply or require that a person be a member of a militia in order to exercise their right keep and bear arms. It simply says that a well drilled militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The purpose of the article is just to confuse the issue. I suspect the truth is that Mr. Cornell actually hates the idea of "a free state" and is using his academic position to the best of his ability to destroy it.
“Pennsylvania, in its 1776 Constitution, was the first state to include an express provision affirming the right to bear arms. It also passed a stringent loyalty oath that disarmed a large proportion of its population.”
Perhaps Mr. Cornell can explain how a colonial Pennsylvania law in 1776 relevant to the Bill of Rights ratified by all of the states of the new republic of the United States of America in December 1791? It apparently hasn’t occurred to the professor that after a long war to achieve independence from Great Britain, the good people of the former American colonies (including Pennsylvania) recognized the need to protect the right of citizens to own guns. Experience changes perspective. Had the American people been disarmed in 1776 there would have been no American Revolution.
“the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Bolstering your point, the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly vested in the PEOPLE, not the militia.
The “militia” of the time included any man capable of bearing arms. There wasn’t a standing army and there were no police forces back then. If the Indians came raiding, or a bad guy needed to be chased, adult men grabbed their guns and acted as ‘militia’.
Well regulated meant trained and equipped to do the job. So guys with guns and who knew how to use them formed “a well regulated militia”.
IIRC.