[robertpaulsen]

More accurately, "A well stocked library, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Given that this is a right secured only from federal infringement, it says that the federal government shall not interfere with the state constructing and stocking libraries for use by the people. Certainly, as with the first amendment restrictions, the federal government can reasonably restrict the kind of books the state library carries.

Now, if the state wishes to allow people to purchase their own books, keep them at home, carry them around, or set a minimum age for buying and reading books, well, the states retain their police powers to do that.

[raygun]

With respect to the "well regulated Militia" part of the e.g. clause, the "well educated electorate" is more equivocal regarding "being necessary to the security of a free State" purpose (benefit) clause. Albeit, the purpose of libraries notwithstanding, your point can not be refuted as you have stated it; the benefit of libaries to that of a free State is rather obtuse (while the benefit of a well regulated Militia or a well educated electorate can not be questioned in that regard). Clearly, the 1st clause of either analogy is merely a for instance with respecting the absolute need for the second clause, therefore the right shall not be infringed. You are correct, in any case, concerning the Constitution forbiding federal usurpation of State's power concerning any of that.

IF the argument had been made that the restrictions in the 1st ammendment pertained to free speech exclusively (therefor exposing the need for such an ammendment), I wonder what debate the Founding Fathers would've had regarding the nuances and subtleties respecting either of our nominations for such ammendment.

Just for arguments sake, suppose the adage: "The pen is mightier than the sword" carried significant weight, and therefor was an issue of contention.