Just plugging in what the militia is defined to be, and was at the time the Constitution was written. 
Even a cursory reading of other statements written by the very people who wrote the Constitution would be sufficient to obliterate this article as the absolute drivel that it is.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason
The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Typical NYT: “Because we’re too stupid to understand it as written, let’s pretend it’s written another way that we can understand.” Bushwa.
TC
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
Under this reasoning then the next phrase should have been: The right of a “militia” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But instead the word “people” was used and for a specific purpose.
IBrp.
OK so by his own argument, in order to protect our ability to form militias, all private individuals have the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit. Good enough.
orwellian doublespeak.
per the NYT the US Constitution is crimethink.
I would also challenge the author to cite any founding era idea of "collective" rights. Individuals have RIGHTS. Governments have been given JUST POWERS by individuals.:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happines
That's exactly what the rather awkwardly worded second amendment means. But the right still belongs to the people, not the militia. The right of the people is protected so that a well regulated militia can always be formed. To protect the state, or to overthrow it, as necessary.
Idiot. It gives "a" reason for NOT infringing upon the right of the people (you and me) to keep and bear arms. The founders knew the difference between a standing army, select militia, the militia and the people. The right is not a privilege of a collective (subset of specially blessed government operatives). No, it is a God-given right which all people share.
Molon Labe.
Just plugging in what the militia is defined to be, and was at the time the Constitution was written.
"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require."
The basic version of this is:
"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias."
This definitive opinion was supported by, among other things, a thorough textual and structural analysis. It very clearly and accurately identifies "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State..." as being a prefatory subordinate clause and not Professor Lund's ablative absolute rhetorical device of Latin prose.
Specifically, "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State..." is a prefatory declaration to a provision of legal code...the Constitution. As such, it can illuminate the operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it. And that operative language is "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Professor Lund should review his opinion with the understanding that the Second Amendment is a provision of legal code written in English, a Germanic language, and not a Latin rhetorical device (an Italic language). The rules are different.
But what do liberals care for rules...or laws?!
This is one of the things that bother me about the 16th Amendment (the one justifying income tax) people on this website. They say that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified since it contained different commas in the different approved versions.
If that is true, that also means the 2nd Amendment was not properly ratified. I, for one, don’t want to go there.
“The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas. . . .Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence.”
Ummm, moron, commas ARE part of the setence’s grammer. They’re there for a reason.
Liberals’ “interpretation” techniques amaze me. They aid words and phrases to clauses and want to omit words, phrase, and grammar from other clauses.
That is absolutele nonsense. Congress has the power to call forth and govern any State's militia, as well as set the rules for training. That, folks, is supreme authority.
What is to stop Congress from calling forth the Illinois NG, for example, into the service of the United States, and then shipping them all to a base in Alaska?
How would the Second Amendment stop that?
_____________________________________
Here is the enumerated power of Congress in the matter:
I.8.15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
I.8.16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
~George Mason, 1788
“The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ~Samuel Adams, 1788
“The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed.”
~Patrick Henry
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1776
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.”
~Noah Webster, 1787