Grammatically, and it therefore follows legally, this is incorrect - what you quoted is not a single clause, it is a compound clause, a single clause would not have a comma.
"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."
This is a single complete sentence with a specific internal logic.
1. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
2. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.
A literal, and contextually consistent, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be to have an armoury with M16 rifles in every town under the care of a professional armourer where every adult citizen (or just every adult male citizen) was required to train at least twice a month and pass certification on the weapon once a year.
Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).
Yet another interpretation would be that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" and ever man has a right to join and therefore "bear arms" which completely negates the private gun ownership argument - this being the line taken by the Supreme Court until some time after WWII.
What is most certainly true is that if you accept that the right to "bear arms" is inalienable then you must also accept that the "state" has a Constitutional responsibility to "regulate" with a view to forming a militia. Whilst this doesn't allow for an automatic weapons ban it DOES place certain responsibilities on the "state" to regulate the calibre of weapons being sold as well as the quality. You can't have your militia turn up with grotty rifles that all jam after a week and become unusable either because they were cheap or because they were poorly looked after.
There are certainly a number of interpretations, and I think that was deliberate, but it's very clear that the intention was for a regulated "citizen militia" which could defend the US from external enemies. It's also clear that regulation at either State or Federal level was seen as necessary to achieve the required level of effectiveness.
Bookmarks