[taxcontrol]

It was once explained to me that the structure of the 2nd amendment is in the form of ... because/thus or why/action

The because clause describes why
The thus clause is the action

So “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” = WHY

” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” = ACTION

Thus, the 2nd amendment directly address a right of the People.

[BlueLancer]

I do like your because/thus description. That would mean that the manner in which to read and clearly understand the 2nd Amendment would be:

Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Neat and concise ...

[Phlyer]

Thus, the 2nd amendment directly address[es] a right of the People.

I agree, as most here on Freerepublic would agree. When I discuss this with those for whom the plain rules of English are not sufficient, I point out the historical record on the effectiveness of the American "militia."

When the Minutemen tried to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in line facing the British regulars at Lexington, they were unprepared for that situation. They broke and ran, leaving the British not only in command of Lexington Green, but free to proceed on their way to Concord to seize the weapons there.

But on that journey, concluding with their return to Boston, the 'militia' sniped at them from behind trees and fences and haystacks, using their own weapons, with which they were familiar, trained, and had great skill. They were very successful.

So, the American concept of the militia was citizens who reported with skills acquired as civilians, fighting as they might hunt, not as an organized army using the tactics of the day (massed volleys).

So, I agree with those who say that it is a valid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that it is intended to provide a well-qualified militia - but point out that the militia, as used there, is very different from an organized, structured, highly-disciplined army. Instead, it is comprised of brave civilians who report with their own weapons, already familiar with and skilled in their use.

The 2nd Amendment is not just about hunting, nor about self-defense, though those are also valid reasons to 'keep and bear arms.' It truly is about providing a skilled civilian militia.

Nonetheless, even without that rationale, the plain language is what matters anyway and all the 'why' does not change the direct 'what' that is established.