
[stuff deleted]


Ah, clarification by obfuscation.

Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
maintaining a milita.  The sentence doesn't restrict the right, or
state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
a free state.
In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.



The final word on liberties and rights should not belong "to the
many".  That is why we have a Constitution.  Otherwise, a tyrrany of
the majority can ensue from "popular" opinion, a concept which you
should be familiar with from the Federalist papers.