+80 (second amendment interpretation 58)

Still about the incorporating issue

We have this elephant standing in the middle. We have the Second Amendment talks about "being necessary to the security of a free state" as the reason for having a "well regulated" militia and that, in turn, as the reason to prevent infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Having the right to keep and bear arms for self defense according to that does not change the reason given for the right to keep and bear arms to being for self defense. 

So even if the court has shown keeping and bearing arms being "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" in general, how much does the way the Second Amendment was written show specifically that it is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition to restrict exclusively for the security of a free state the restrictions on keeping and bearing arms? 

Also all the reference by the court to the preceding history in recognizing a right to keep and bear arms for self defense, seem like an added benefit here in case an objection gets raised based on the history following the making of the Second Amendment.