First, it's the people's right. That's the same people refered to everywhere else in the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights. When the States are the subject, the word State(s) is used, as it is in the 10th Amend, or in the body of the Constitution itself. It's the people's right.
The clause preceding the directive, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is neither a preamble, nor is it a qualification. It's a statement reflecting on and stating that the directive itself is necessary. The implied necessity is Freedom. Regulated means to make functional, effective and unencumbered. It does not mean regulated as some folks would have it. They insist it means infringed. That would contradict the main directive, which is that the people's right should not be infringed. Tribe's claim and Bork's also, amounts to the claim that the Amend. could be rewritten to read: "A well infringed militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The free State means the condition of the people, not the condition of any State. Else the directive would have been written as: the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders were clear about standing armies, just as they were clear in their meaning of the second Amendment, that it was the people's unqualified right, not the States, and it was not to be infringed.
Here's the liberal version according to their claims: "A well infringed people, being necessary for the security of an almighty State, the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Does it sound better when you say it?
Because basically, that's exactly the same thing I just said.
LOL!