[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

There are only 2 ways to look at it:

1 The right to bear arms depends on the militia;
2 The militia depends on the right to bear arms.

How can any literate person read 2A and not see which one is the correct reading?

That said, I’m sure sorry they phrased it that way, but how could they know that 200 years of progress would make so many fools?

[gitmo]

There are only 2 ways to look at it:

1 The right to bear arms depends on the militia;

2 The militia depends on the right to bear arms.

There is a third way. The phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " is explanatory, not a dependency. Because we need a well regulated militia, the people need to bear arms.

[Smokin' Joe]

Actually, to a group who had just wrested government from a largely military government, controlling the militia by the people having the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the existence of a free state.

The militia was defined in contemporary English dictionaries as "The army, in its entirety" and not the many meanings which have been applied since.

'Control of the army being necessary to the security of a free state (preventing Junta), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' makes perfect contextual sense, and is greatly in agreement with the opinions expressed in Federalist 46 and elsewhere.

The right is an individual right, and was intended to be protected as such.