“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.”
After reading the article and the comments in the thread, and looking at your video, it occurred to me that it could be looked at as follows:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” means that a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect the state from external invasion and internal insurrection, banditry and so forth. You pretty much have to have something like that. But they knew such a militia could be turned against the people in an act of tyranny so “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” because the people might have to defend themselves against such a “well-regulated militia” if it was turned against them in an act of tyranny.
For some time I’ve thought the founders had difficulty incorporating such an “off switch” in the government they were establishing. They didn’t want to be too obvious about including in the formal documentation the concept of “If we screw up, just shoot us”.