The following is taken from J. Neil Schulman's book Stopping Power,
(Pulpless.com, 1999 © 1999)
//The first person usage refers to Mr. Schulman//
"I just had a conversation with Mr. A. C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys H.S., as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.......
I gave Mr. Brocki my name.....then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Mr Brocki informed me that the sentence was over punctuated, but the meaning could be extracted anyway:
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate."
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people."
“Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed."
"To keep and read books is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "Shall not be infringed."
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.
Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate.....
He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose and read the 2nd A. in full:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?'
He said, "Yes."
I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.
He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "Because 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."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in 200 years.
He said "No."
I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia."
He said, "No."
According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?"
BROCKI; "No, I don't see that."
SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on the opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the 2nd. Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms. -July17, 1991
Sculman and Usage continued…………
"……but who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?"
That was the question I asked A. C. Brocki.... Mr Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at USC and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. ...
American Usage and Style: The Consensus has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
//Schulman goes on to describe how he introduced himself to Professor Copperud and then describes a letter he wrote containing many questions concerning the 2nd. A. given the debate whether the opening clause, A well regulated militia..... "is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause w/ respect to the independent clause and subject of the sentence, "the right of the ......"
Sculman went on to ask, "I would request that your analysis ..... be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further.....I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." – PB//
"After several more letters and phone calls... Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis:
[Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
[Copperud: (3) no such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
Maybe if the FATHERS had a JOBS they would have less time to get pregnant. Get a JOB!! 
Come on 2A that question is just for 2A.
