Baraka_Guru

Thanks for attempting to clear this up. It's quite confusing. In modern convention, the sentence is actually confusing because of the commas. (As Will has commented on.) I read this interesting article that offers a modernized paraphrase of it for us (bearing in mind the grammatical conventions of the day in comparison to today):

Since 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.

But the article goes on about how it is still unclear. The right shall not be infringed by whom? (They suggest it should have been written in the active voice: e.g. "The Federal government shall not infringe....")

But the most interesting point in the article to me was how they point out that since the clause "Well-regulated militia..." is there, instead of just "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," it cannot be ignored. What does this mean, then? To me, it seems, the "right" falls under the context of the militia, and that "the people" have the right to bear arms only within the confines of what would be considered "well regulated," i.e. no blank cheque. Also, "the people" is a collective noun. Foggy. The second amendment isn't about an individual's right; it's about a group's right. The group should be well-regulated, as the framers have suggested. (Again, no blank cheque.) Do you not want this "security" for your "free state"?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot