Replies

I think "being necessary to the security of a free state" is parenthetical either way

For the most part, I agree.

Consider the following:

A well regulated Internet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems shall not be infringed.
Or
A well regulated universe being necessary for the sun to rise each morning, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Or
A well regulated carpenter being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear hammers shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment clearly indicates that in order for a State to be able to raise a militia the government must not interfere with the individual citizen’s inherent right to gun ownership. Which State supports the notion of raising a well-regulated militia made up of their unarmed citizens? Remember, a single armed individual can be a militia

I always thought this phrasing of the freedom of the press part of the 1st amendment in terms of the 2nd is a good analogy for gun phobes to chew on:

A well-informed electorate being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and disseminate literature shall not be infringed.

Naturally this means only the electoral college can vote, and it doesn't protect semi-automatic printing presses, radio and TV or the Internet ;-)