A) 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.
B) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Basically, you're saying that "A" and "B" are the same thing. Identical, really.
Then why all the extra words in "A"? Madison thought it would look cool?
That is covered pretty well in the decision. Sorry it shoots down your entire posting history on this forum.
Because by defining a broad right, the feds could be assured the narrower goal could be achieved. This court was very clear about the broad/narrow contrast, and its usefulness in protecting rights to assure smaller benefits.
In contrast: if the feds could disarm the populace short of their actual participation in an active militia (another issue clearly addressed in the verdict, which apparently you missed), then when need arose to call up the militia there would then be no assurance that enough respondents would actually have arms. As it is now, and as the Founding Fathers intended, calling out the militia would bring more weapons than needed and thus be immediately ready to perform; per your interpretation, calling out the militia would result in an awful lot of people waiting for a buearocracy (sp?) to find, deliver, and even order/manufacture weapons - and that at a time when every delay threatens the security of a free state.