Quote (sir_lance_bb @ Oct 6 2017 01:33pm)
the comma between militia and the people should clarify that individuals have the right to bear arms?
Quote (Leevee @ Oct 6 2017 01:48pm)
If you want to get purely grammatical about it: the commas make it an apposition, so it definitely means that "a well regulated militia" describes "the people". In other words, people who aren't part of a well regulated militia are not part of this amendment's scope.
Quote (Landmine @ Oct 6 2017 01:59pm)
Wrong.
The whole purpose was to make sure that people had the ability to overthrow an unjust government or militia that was in power.
You're all either half-right or fully wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an appositive of the noun phrase "the security of a free state."
If you consult Ghot's post, you'll notice that the U.S. had no federal army at the time. And considering the failure of the Articles of Confederacy, but the sentiment of the revolution and of the AoC, the way the second amendment is written was probably done to appease some who may have been distrustful of a Federal government ("a state" meant just that, and not the United States).
Obviously with the advent of the Federal army, the meaning as-written of the Second Amendment is basically null. It survives today on the back of jurisprudence.