[Senator John Blutarski]

The only way that the Second Amendment can be difficult to interpret or understand is if the reader absolutely insists upon grotesquely placing the subordinate clause in a predominant position. Even then, nowhere does the PRE-EXISTENCE of “a well regulated militia” appear as a qualifying condition upon which the public’s right “to keep and bear arms” must depend. End of story. Case closed.
Only the most unscrupulous agenda-driven sophists would even attempt any contrary interpretation. Unfortunately, quite a lot of such creatures circulate among us.

[aruanan]

Even then, nowhere does the PRE-EXISTENCE of “a well regulated militia” appear as a qualifying condition upon which the public’s right “to keep and bear arms” must depend.

Hasn't it already been well-established that the militia is referring to the people itself, not to a creature of the state such as a state or federal military organization?

[Sherman Logan]

Our Constitution did not arise out of nothing. The 2nd Amendment has quite obvious precedent in the English Bill of Rights that was a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”

This idea was carried over into the 2nd, with of course the religious and class aspects removed, as these were not relevant in America.

IOW, the 2nd was expanding a previously recognized right of Englishmen from upper-class Protestants to the entire People.