Well, first of all, most people don't realize that there are more words in the 2nd amendment than just "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". Complete sentences and complete paragraphs are what communicates ideas and intent. That being said, what does the first part of the 2nd "being necessary for the security of the States" and " a well regulated m*****a " mean?

You are correct except for this from Legal Information Institute;

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a m*****a, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

A well regulated m*****a...a m*****a is voluntary service, and the volunteer MUST have their own arms in order to participate.

"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just say it backward...The right of the people (that's us) to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED, in order to man a well regulated m*****a, when necessary for the security of a free state.

This makes it pretty easy to understand and in almost identical wording.

Ever notice that when the federal government requires States to do stuff we don't like, we're all about the independence of States and against Federal overreach, but when States do stuff we don't like - we want the federal government to step in and put a stop to it? You know, like whining about how the Fed required Title ix stuff to be applied - but wanted the Fed to tell States how to handle i******s. Yeah, like that. Either we want the Federal Government to stay out of our business, or we want them in our business (or should I say in YOUR business), it can't be both.

Ever notice that we pretend that our justice system is blind to color, race, religion or political party, only when we agree with the courts decisions? When we don't like their rulings, we accuse the judges of being activists if they're a member of the "other" party, or t*****rs if they belong to ours. Then, we crow like mad when we think our courts are full of folks who think like we do. We don't really want judges to follow the Constitution, we want them to interpret it to say what we want it to say.

Ever notice that we clamor about following the Constitution, as long as it agrees with what we want? To ensure that it always says what we want it to say, we do our level best to make sure that the highest courts in the land have partisans on the bench. We don't let the Constitution determine our ideology, we try to force the Constitution to conform to our ideology. Personally, I think that is indicative of a mental illness.

Ever notice that when v**es go how we like, our polling system is perfect, but when they don't, it MUST be due to v***r f***d and/or a messed up system? I've seen people react both ways.............in the same e******n cycle. How can we have 100% legitimate v**es...............and................v***r f***d occurring on the same b****t? This is just more evidence of a mental malady.

Well, first of all, most people don't realize that there are more words in the 2nd amendment than just "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". Complete sentences and complete paragraphs are what communicates ideas and intent. That being said, what does the first part of the 2nd "being necessary for the security of the States" and " a well regulated m*****a " mean?

I don't care how a state handles it's own business. If California wants to roll out the welcome mat for wetbacks, fine. Just make sure the wetbacks and all the problems that go with them stay in California and don't affect anyone else. If New York wants to tax people to death, fine. Up until they get fed up and leave and come to my state and try and turn it into a little New York.
People from the Northeast, and the left coast are so damn arrogant in thinking that what they want, or what works (or what they THINK works) for them must surely be the best solution for everyone else.
The fact is that there is no one size fits all.

California is almost gone. For all intents and purposes, it is gone, because Democrats now control the state.
I don't know if we can survive Gavin Newsome's term as Governor. The ones who have already left the state are taking their marbles with them because they refuse to play this game any longer. What will the socialists do when they run out of money from those who have it and earn it all decide to quit paying for everyone else. At least they still have the Hollywood liberals who seem more than willing to put up with and support this system. What happens when the rest of America decides to no longer support these elitists with their lavish lifestyle of Gomorrah?