+103 (second amendment interpretation 76)

This may already be clear to native speakers, but a little while ago I wondered if "of the people" was about a newly created right it would have better expressed as "for the people" instead.   

+102 (second amendment interpretation 75)

Although, I started just seeking to improve the neutrality of "the right of the people", now I try to add it as additional support to my understanding of the preceding part of the Amendment. Related to post +100, because, unlike when the reason for the "right" in the Arms clause is the continued necessity of the militia, there is no reason to see that right existing before its recognition in the Amendment, when "being" is just about  the militia itself without continued necessity. That would imply the "right" in the Arms clause was created with the recognition of it in the preceding part. In addition to the absence of support for the creation of that right and having the use of "the" with the word "right" suggesting referring to an already existing right, the "of the people" adds support to the word "right" in countering taking "being" that way by suggesting more that right is already existing and not just created.

Not only the purpose for "of the people" mentioned above can coexist with that described in post +99, they both could have originated from the same intention and seeing them as separate here is just another consequence of standing too close? In other words, both intentions for the use of "of the people" to describe "the right" (as already existing, for one, and, belongs to the people, for the other) could have been included in the intention to identify the right and that was done by pointing to its origin using "of the people".

+101 (second amendment interpretation 74)

Although my intention in writing the preceding post, and the earlier talk about "continuity connection", was to show using "right" like a filter that would not let things pass if the preceding part was applied on "being" not requiring continued existing in the status, that intention should not prevent an understanding limited to "right" directing how "being" should be taken from the construction stage of taking the Amendment.  
By the way, "the continuous having" in the preceding post should be replaced with "the continued having".

+100 (second amendment interpretation 73)

Despite that I myself responded otherwise in the hypothetical discussion of post +97, it is actually not an uncommon use of "being" to refer to the reaching of a status without necessarily the continued existence in it. But the word "right" here can clarify the intention to be about the continued necessity.  

Also, the more reasonable way to understand the part before "the right", as being about reaching the status of necessity of the militia and not necessarily the continuous having of that necessity, seems to come from understanding that part as being about the militia itself not the situation in general. This could fit with the use, talked about earlier, of the comma after "A well regulated militia", in order not to make "being necessary to the security of a free State" about the militia itself, in showing one specific reason why.

+99 (second amendment interpretation 72)

Although the preceding part in the Amendment can fit "of the people" as expressing the quality of being already existing for the right, it is important not to miss taking into account using that phrase to identify to whom the right belong given that the militia was the focus of the preceding part.    

+98 (second amendment interpretation 71)

In the preceding post it seems better to express the existence in the Amendment of that right, mentioned using the word "right", as being attached to the status of the necessity of the militia. Because we are not sure that right can survive the severance of that attachment, that right did not establish an existence that needs to be proved discontinued when the status of the necessity of the militia is no longer here.  
Also, it probably would have been better or safer to precede that point with the one about how the status of the necessity of the militia could have been itself what caused that right to exist, instead of making it follow.

+97 (second amendment interpretation 70)

Notice that in addition to this big difference in having explanations and seeing how parts of the whole picture fit and complete each other, in comparison with the other side, after proving that in our time the part saying that a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state is no longer true, the burden of proof is on the other side. One may start by saying to the other side:

You cannot ignore "being". 

The other side could respond saying:

Even though I cannot satisfy the burden of proving that "being" was intended beyond its direct status meaning, still the burden of proof that the Arms clause was not intended to always apply, falls on you. Who knows? Maybe they meant to say that because a well regulated militia was necessary at that time, the right to keep and bear Arms should continue forever.

To that one may respond saying:

Aside from the lack of a reasonable connection between the two parts, for that you still should carry the burden of proving that there is still that right to keep and bear arms the Amendment mentioned at the beginning of the Arms clause. That is because the Arms clause of the Amendment said that the right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed. It did not say that the keeping and bearing of Arms should not be infringed. You cannot say that I should carry the burden of proving that right to keep and bear Arms no longer exist. That is because the existence in the Amendment of that right to keep and bear Arms was in combination with the existence of the status of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In other words, that right existed in the Amendment with that status as one whole. Since that right to keep and bear Arms also might have been itself created by the status of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and is dependent on the continuity of that status for its existence, the existence of that right by itself was not established, to begin with, for you to say that I still should prove the discontinuity of that existence when a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is no longer true.         

+96 (second amendment interpretation 69)

Continuing from the preceding post

Or one could say because they started speaking about the conditional status, using "being", and not about an always true fact, they kept on that focus and used the word "right" to provide conditional connection. No matter how one expresses that, the use of the word "right" fits very strongly with the conditionality of "being". 

+95 (second amendment interpretation 68)

Why did they choose to express the keeping and bearing of Arms part using the word "right"? Why not, among other possible expressions, for example, say "the keeping and bearing of Arms.."? Although emphasizing the keeping and bearing of Arms as a right may look like a sufficient answer, there seems to be a more compelling answer. The word "right" here provides a continuity connection between the "the right of the people.." part and the preceding part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary.."). Had they said something that goes directly to the intended actions (keeping and bearing of Arms), like the example I mentioned above, the door would have not been as shut to an interpretation suggesting that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part intended to apply forever even if the preceding part, with the word "being", has stopped. But when they put the word "right" to link the part before it with the part after it then the continuity of allowing the capability to keep and bear Arms will depend on the keeping and bearing of Arms being a right which in turn depends on the continuity of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.           

+94

Although I mentioned just that case in post +92, I just found that even in the District of Columbia v. Heller case residents were allowed to keep shotguns if they are bound by trigger locks. Is applying a trigger lock really a problem? Why shotguns are treated like a version of NERF here? This is supposed to be a tough firearm law? A tough firearms law would punish for holding a picture of a shotgun.    

+93 (second amendment interpretation 67)

Although it was far from leading me to ignore the clear-cut meaning of the preceding part, that "the right of the people" kept pinching me for its possible effect on other people. Now that I paid attention to how recognizing that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," leads to a right to keep and bear Arms, also imply the existence of that right before the point of that recognition whenever "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was the status, there is no trouble in seeing "the right of the people" as originating from the same root and the Amendment appears in better harmony.

But it is not just about interpreting the Amendment as a whole. I started to care more about what using the expression "the right of the people" imply, because of the 14th Amendment incorporating issue. Now there is no reason to see that expression originating from seeing a right to keep and bear Arms for reasons other than "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".           

+92

I just want to know what is going on with this stun gun prohibition in some states. Are those people serious? You have real gun ownership and selling allowed and you go after stun guns? Actually even if we assume firearms are not allowed in your state, one may still wonder about the wisdom of forbidding a nonlethal device like this.    

People here may be accustomed to it but it may not occur to people in other places hearing a discussion about a case like McDonald v. City of Chicago that the lawsuit was filed for the ownership of handgun despite that there was no prohibition on shotguns there. So with gun culture like this you go after stun guns?       

+91 (second amendment interpretation 66)

It seems that I messed up so I deleted the post as long as it is within 24 hours of posting and I am replacing it with this one. I got confused trying to answer a hypothetical argument about the expression "the right of the people" suggesting inclination for other reasons to restrict government power on keeping and bearing of Arms. Of course if "the right of the people" was intended to be ""the right of the people"" then that argument got nothing. But that is not necessary because otherwise post +90 below, at least with the change added here, gave a sufficient answer for that argument. My mistake was that when I saw how much "the right of the people" could be seen to refer to something already established I thought that post would not fit because I took when "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" was stated to lead to the right of keeping and bearing Arms, as when that right started to exist. 

I need to correct or make things better in post +90 by replacing "the preceding part" (referring to the part of the Amendment before "the right of the people") with "the condition expressed in the preceding part".    

+90 (second amendment interpretation 65)

I just noticed that because of the generality on people expressed using the "right of the people" expression, one may mistakenly extend that to generality on conditions and fail to see that the preceding part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") could have been itself what made the keeping and bearing of Arms a right to begin with and not just prohibited its infringement.  

+89 (second amendment interpretation 64)

continuing from the preceding post

Moreover, that width isolation for a purpose (selecting "security of a free state" from among others) to have a right to keep and bear Arms was also accompanied by depth isolation for that purpose through the mentioning of a militia.

I questioned, in POST +81, why the Amendment was not stated as:

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As much as you may not agree with the executory isolation of the purpose through applying "well regulated" on a militia, talked about in that post, because you take "well regulated" in a less sophisticated way, as much as the mentioning of a militia would be less needed and shows more serving as isolation in expression between the ultimate purpose ("the security of a free state") and the people's right to keep and bear Arms. If the makers of the Amendment were even moderately enthusiastic for other reasons as restrictions on government power (like for example "self-defense right") why did they point out the intermediacy of the militia stage in achieving the purpose of the security of a free state instead of letting it be expressed directly from the status of people having a right to keep and bear Arms? It doesn't take thinking effort to see that people protect the security of their state using their right to keep and bear Arms by fighting together in a militia.