Even defenders of the right to keep and bear arms seem to have bought into the idea that the militia clause refers to organized military units under government control. "Militia" was used sometimes in that sense, other times in the sense of an armed populace or citizenry that might be called on to serve. "Well-regulated" was used in 18th century parlance to mean "well-coordinated" or "well-operating" or "effectively operating."

The relation between the two clauses of the Second Amendment is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to serve the purpose of an effective militia, namely, the security of a free state. "Security" does not mean only defense by organized military units against invasion or insurrection. When armed citizens defend themselves, their homes or families, or when they come to the aid of their fellow citizens against attackers, they are contributing as members of the militia to security.

No interpretation that I've seen, if it uses the parenthetical phrase to negate the declaration of an individual right to keep and bears arms, can account respectfully and plausibly for the very existence of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Nice try...

Were you reading the minds of the Founders when you argued that?

It may be the most ridiculous legal statement I have ever heard. It is a nice ideological and maybe political beliefe, but to have that statement made in the legal realm is asinine.

You can argue that we need to apply things in a current historical and cultural context, and that your ideological position is the one given, but then you have to also respect the other diverse viewpoints that counter your position. The Second Amendment does not support your ideological position on its face. It requires the ideological assumptions you ask us to accept.

CP