Knowledge test [W:93]

[Goshin]

Just curious, why didn't the author(s) of the second amendment put the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" clause FIRST instead of second after the "well regulated militia" clause?

And if they intended the second clause to stand alone, then why didn't they put a semi colon instead of a comma?

Well, let's ASK the authors of the BoR, and the founders of nation, what they meant by the 2A... then we won't have to wonder:


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison


The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

[Moot]

Well, let's ASK the authors of the BoR, and the founders of nation, what they meant by the 2A... then we won't have to wonder:

Sorry, but none of those quotes explain why the first congress changed the semi colon in Madison's version to a comma in the versions that congress voted on and ratified. It sure would have prevented a lot argument and misinterpretation if they hadn't. But they did, so why did they do that?

 

[Jerry]

Even if it is a "reason" it doesn't change the fact.

Right, yes, absolutely. I didn't buy a snub .38 to go hunting. I have a rifle for hunting. I bought a snub .38 it so I could kill a human being. I can't even say it's any good for 'target practice' because a snub can't be aimed past 10-15ft anyway. I carry my Smith & Wesson Model 642 Snubnose Revolver for the expressed point and purpose of killing a human being. That's the only thing it's good for. That's why I bought it, that's why I carry it; to kill a human being.

That's "gun violence" and that's a good thing when it's 'gun violence' against a criminal.

That's "gun-related death", and that's a good thing when the dead is the criminal.

Shooting bad people is a good thing.

And yet, calibers have nothing to do with whether or not there should be gun control. A small handgun can kill... or defend just as easily as a large machine gun... or whatever they are calling them nowadays. I fully support learning about the subject before discussing it. Before discussing any issue at DP, I always do some research... and then assess whether my research has provided me with enough information to discuss the issue. Truthfully, what I see when discussing gun rights... VERY similar to what I see when discussing pretty much ANY issue at DP is that it comes down to a battle of semantics and definitions.

Here's the thing, though. Because of more access to firearms in the US, there are more gun-related deaths than in any other first world country. Here's the thing, though. That DOESN'T equate to limiting gun access. This is the problem with the debate. The first part of my statement... pro-gun folks deny... and the second part of my statement... pro-gun-control folks deny. Yet both are true.

No we don't. We do not deny that there are more gun related deaths. We caused some of those gun-related deaths, so why would we deny it? We're proud of killing criminals. THat's the whole point. "Gun violence" to cause "gun related deaths" against bad people, and the manifest result is lower crime.

 

[Goshin]

Sorry, but none of those quotes explain why the first congress changed the semi colon in Madison's version to a comma in the versions that congress voted on and ratified. It sure would have prevented a lot argument and misinterpretation if they hadn't. But they did, so why did they do that?

I present about a dozen quotes from the Founders on exactly what they meant with the 2A, and you want to quibble about a comma?

Careful, your agenda is showing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sorry, but none of those quotes explain why the first congress changed the semi colon in Madison's version to a comma in the versions that congress voted on and ratified. It sure would have prevented a lot argument and misinterpretation if they hadn't. But they did, so why did they do that?

since you want to discuss what congress did and did not do, explain why the constitution contains absolutely no delegation of a power to regulate small arms to congress

 

[Ray410]

I carried and used an M-16 and later a CAR15. At most we only had 24-25 guys in the platoon, but we had three M-60s, Claymores, all the frags you wanted and some of us carried Willie Peters, plus LAWs, a demo bag with C4, fuses and blasting caps. We used it all and surprise, surprise, I'll bet none of my guys, even the ones still living, could answer the technical questions asked by the OP. They were all good American fighting men, though.

In a gun ownership debate, the questions are more individual than technical. It's important to know what governments historically do to an unarmed, therefore defenseless populace. There's a reason why the democrats want you unarmed and it isn't good. Even now their heroes are making jokes about killing the white people. You cannot let the camel get it's head into the tent.

Ask yourself if you want to be the one to defend yourself and your family or do you want to call somebody on the phone and then wait for them to arrive while the dispatcher asks you stupid, unnecessary questions. Are you actually silly enough to think anyone else cares enough about you to put their lives on the line for you? The police carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

Americans are traditionally self reliant, brave, individualistic warriors, who take care of themselves, don't let anyone tell you anything different. If you ever give up your guns, you will never be a man again.

 

[H. Lee White]

Just curious, why didn't the author(s) of the second amendment put the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" clause FIRST instead of second after the "well regulated militia" clause?
And if they intended the second clause to stand alone, then why didn't they put a semi colon instead of a comma?

Your questions, and the point you want to make with them, are moot.
The 2nd protects an individual right not connected to service in the militia. You can disagree, but that just makes you wrong.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I present about a dozen quotes from the Founders on exactly what they meant with the 2A, and you want to quibble about a comma?

Careful, your agenda is showing.

People need to be very careful with the "comma" arguement on the pro-control side, it's already smacked them around in court. Using grammar, there are two clauses in the second amendment, a dependent clause(the militia clause) and the independent clause(RTKBA). The independent clause stands readily as a sentence whle the dependent does not. You can easily remove the militia clause and the RTKBA clause still bars infringement, without the independent clause and comma the militia clause is an incomplete sentence with no meaning.

 

[Bob N]

People need to be very careful with the "comma" arguement on the pro-control side, it's already smacked them around in court. Using grammar, there are two clauses in the second amendment, a dependent clause(the militia clause) and the independent clause(RTKBA). The independent clause stands readily as a sentence whle the dependent does not. You can easily remove the militia clause and the RTKBA clause still bars infringement, without the independent clause and comma the militia clause is an incomplete sentence with no meaning.

Still, one can not degrade the importance of a dependent clause in a complete sentence; it can modify or serve as a component of the the independent clause. Note:

After he received a promotion from his boss, Joe took his coworkers to the bar and bought them drinks to celebrate.

First, that is a complete sentence. Now I do realize, like you said, that the independent clause can stand alone as a sentence; however, without the dependent clause one would only get to guess as to why Joe and his coworkers are celebrating. Did Joe get engaged to be married? Could Joe's wife be pregnant? Did one of Joe's kids get accepted to a prestigious college? There would be numerous guesses that would be going through the reader's head without the presence of the dependent clause to add more information.

Now note:

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.

Lets look at the independent clause:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please remember that the second amendment is a complete sentence with those clauses contained therein. Was the dependent clause important to the second amendment? I don't know. I didn't write it and no one in this forum wrote it either, but the creator(s) of that complete sentence must have thought it to be important or it would have never been created the way we presently read it.

Using the independent clause we know that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and those rights shall not be infringed. Immediately after reading that clause, and considering the dependent clause missing, one would be left wondering as to why the people have the right to keep and bear arms and why that right shall not be infringed, which would leave the reader to wonder as to the thoughts of the creator(s) of that sentence that stands alone.

Do they get this right because they may need to hunt and provide for their families? Do they get this right for self-protection? Do they get this right because they get to be law enforcement to their communities?

This can only bring the reader back to that complete sentence, which now contains the dependent clause showing the thoughts of the creator(s) of that sentence. And what are those thoughts on the why the people get to keep and bear arms and why that right shall not be infringed? Lets read those thoughts:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

As the reader can now see an answer is provided in the complete sentence the way the second amendment reads with both clauses intact.

My point is that the independent clause, in the second amendment, alone, would be a complete sentence; however, the forefathers decided to place a dependent clause in that sentence which gives us more information on their thoughts to the why of the independent clause, and no one should try to erase either clause to make it in to something else.

 

[Fisher]

Sorry, but none of those quotes explain why the first congress changed the semi colon in Madison's version to a comma in the versions that congress voted on and ratified. It sure would have prevented a lot argument and misinterpretation if they hadn't. But they did, so why did they do that?

I don't see that a semi-colon was the appropriate punctuation at least based on modern usage. Second, I do not see that the militia clause was even necessary. It serves to explain their intent, but I think it is just there to make the sentence longer for appearances. I am certain that the anti-gunny position trying to create an imaginary "Just so long as" at the beginning is more troublesome. My understanding is the version passed by Congress and the ones passed by the states varied slightly in punctuation.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Still, one can not degrade the importance of a dependent clause in a complete sentence; it can modify or serve as a component of the the independent clause. Note:



First, that is a complete sentence. Now I do realize, like you said, that the independent clause can stand alone as a sentence; however, without the dependent clause one would only get to guess as to why Joe and his coworkers are celebrating. Did Joe get engaged to be married? Could Joe's wife be pregnant? Did one of Joe's kids get accepted to a prestigious college? There would be numerous guesses that would be going through the reader's head without the presence of the dependent clause to add more information.

Now note:



Lets look at the independent clause:

Please remember that the second amendment is a complete sentence with those clauses contained therein. Was the dependent clause important to the second amendment? I don't know. I didn't write it and no one in this forum wrote it either, but the creator(s) of that complete sentence must have thought it to be important or it would have never been created the way we presently read it.

Using the independent clause we know that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and those rights shall not be infringed. Immediately after reading that clause, and considering the dependent clause missing, one would be left wondering as to why the people have the right to keep and bear arms and why that right shall not be infringed, which would leave the reader to wonder as to the thoughts of the creator(s) of that sentence that stands alone.

Do they get this right because they may need to hunt and provide for their families? Do they get this right for self-protection? Do they get this right because they get to be law enforcement to their communities?

This can only bring the reader back to that complete sentence, which now contains the dependent clause showing the thoughts of the creator(s) of that sentence. And what are those thoughts on the why the people get to keep and bear arms and why that right shall not be infringed? Lets read those thoughts:



As the reader can now see an answer is provided in the complete sentence the way the second amendment reads with both clauses intact.

My point is that the independent clause, in the second amendment, alone, would be a complete sentence; however, the forefathers decided to place a dependent clause in that sentence which gives us more information on their thoughts to the why of the independent clause, and no one should try to erase either clause to make it in to something else.

Um, you realize when there are two thoughts and only one is independent it relegates the dependent clause as less relevant to the sentence and thus of lesser importance right? The subordinate clause is the militia argument, it denotes the lesser weight in the sentence and in fact could be removed if so desired but the second clause, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stands on it's own, IOW the militia clause is but one justification for the primary, meaning it is irrelevant.

This isn't my first rodeo with the "militia requirement".

 

[Moot]

I don't see that a semi-colon was the appropriate punctuation at least based on modern usage. Second, I do not see that the militia clause was even necessary. It serves to explain their intent, but I think it is just there to make the sentence longer for appearances. I am certain that the anti-gunny position trying to create an imaginary "Just so long as" at the beginning is more troublesome. My understanding is the version passed by Congress and the ones passed by the states varied slightly in punctuation.

Based on modern usage? The usage of a semi colon has never changed and to suggest the framers didn't understand the use of punctuation marks is insulting to the framers and the document that this country was founded on.

Yes, there were various hand written versions of the second amendment sent to the states for ratification and apparently some contained more commas than others. But none had a semi colon, like Madisons original version. A semi colon is meant to separate two separate and distinct ideas in the same sentence, whereas a comma makes the following ideas/clauses suboridanent to the first idea/clause in the sentence regardless if the first clause can or can't stand alone. But LaMidnightriders is correct that the second clause does stand alone and the first clause is dependent on the second clause. Without the second clause the first clause would have little relevance since militas needed the right to bear arms for the security of the state. It is the idea of the first clause separated only by a comma that gives relevance to the second clause in the same sentence.

For more than a hundred years the courts consistently said the militia clause trumped the second clause until the NRA, who up until 1977 had mainly concerned themselves with gun safety held a convention of conservative politicians to push for a new interpretation. At first, few accepted their revisionist idea, including many Republicans and Chief Justice Warren E. Burger who called it a fraud. But the NRA kept pushing and with the 1980 election of gun rights enthusiast, Ronald Reagan and subsequently Orrin Hatch as head of the Judiciary committee who commissioned a report that supposedly proved the "long lost" intent was for individual rights to bear arms and negated the orignial intent of enumerating the rights for militias. They finally succeeded in making their interpretation the law of the land in 2008 with District of Colombia vs Heller.

The irony is that conservatives claim they are originalists and the Constitution isn't a living document that changes with the times and yet here they are changing the original intent of the second amendment to fit their agenda.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

 

[nota bene]

Based on modern usage? The usage of a semi colon has never changed and to suggest the framers didn't understand the use of punctuation marks is insulting to the framers and the document that this country was founded on.

Yes, the use of the semicolon has changed. In modern English we use it both to separate two separate independent clauses, very often ones with a causal relationship, when we don't want the full stop of the period or prefer not to use the comma plus coordinating conjunction construction. But we also use the semicolon to separate main elements in a list that has embedded structures (dependent clauses)--e.g. I need to buy vitamins today--Vitamin A, which contains ____; Vitamin B-12, which contains ____; and Vitamin C, which contains...."

Usually, such a list is more complex, but you get the idea. With the exception of the embedded structures example, semicolons are never used to precede a coordinating conjunction; the choice is either the semicolon by itself or comma+coordinating conjunction. In earlier use, however, the semicolon plus coordinating conjunction was very common.

Just for fun because I love talking about punctuation:

Clearly the use of a period for brief pauses as well as full stops at the ends of sentences was inconvenient and writers soon stopped so using it. Tyndale's Gospels (1535) eliminated that practice and other ambiguities of Caxton's system of punctuation. Soon after Tyndale the comma replaced the stroke. The semicolon was introduced at that time.

Early seventeenth century writers appeared to use colons, semicolons, and commas interchangably. Their use depended upon pauses for breath rather than the syntactic structure of the sentence.

Writers of the late seventeenth century tried to establish precise rules for the use of the comma, semicolon and colon, on the principles that a semicolon indicated a pause twice as long as that for a comma, and a colon indicated a pause twice as long as for a semicolon.

History of the Punctuation of English Writing

 

[joko104]

The premise of the OP is foolish in my opinion. A person need know very little about firearms to have a full opinion on the subject.

To use your example would be to ask what is the term for the dna difference between a Caucasian and an African-American - and then claim anyone who can't answer that has no basis for an intelligent opinion on civil rights and racial bigotry.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't see that a semi-colon was the appropriate punctuation at least based on modern usage. Second, I do not see that the militia clause was even necessary. It serves to explain their intent, but I think it is just there to make the sentence longer for appearances. I am certain that the anti-gunny position trying to create an imaginary "Just so long as" at the beginning is more troublesome. My understanding is the version passed by Congress and the ones passed by the states varied slightly in punctuation.

what the amateur constitutional scholars who try to pretend that the Second Amendment did not recognize an individual right forget is that when taken in the whole, the CONSTITUTION is completely silent on delegating any power to the federal government to regulate small arms

 

[Moot]

since you want to discuss what congress did and did not do, explain why the constitution contains absolutely no delegation of a power to regulate small arms to congress

Regulate small arms? What are you talking about, muskeets and pistols? The framers didn't concern themselves with small arms for self defense, but rather the right for men in militias to bear arms for the purpose of state and national defense on the frontiers and from foreign invasion. Nothing else.

The last thing the framers intended was a heavily armed civilian insurrection and Article Four, section 4 gives the states the right to suppress civilians from bearing arms against the states and national government.....

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Does that sound like the framers intended the government to protect the right of individual citizens to own and bear arms to you? It doesnt to me. Why would the framers contradict the Constitution they had just ratified by putting in an enumerated right allowing individuals the right to bear arms against the government? Do you even understand how ridiculous and absurd that notion is? Or are you too blind with your gun cult ideology to see the obvious?

 

[Harshaw]

Regulate small arms? What are you talking about, muskeets and pistols? The framers didn't concern themselves with small arms for self defense, but rather the right for men in militias to bear arms for the purpose of state and national defense on the frontiers and from foreign invasion. Nothing else.

The last thing the framers intended was a heavily armed civilian insurrection and Article Four, section 4 gives the states the right to suppress civilians from bearing arms against the states and national government.....


Does that sound like the framers intended the government to protect the right of individual citizens to own and bear arms to you? It doesnt to me. Why would the framers contradict the Constitution they had just ratified by putting in an enumerated right allowing individuals the right to bear arms against the government? Do you even understand how ridiculous and absurd that notion is? Or are you too blind with your gun cult ideology to see the obvious?

Pure ignorance, based on what you wish, rather than what actually is. The things you make up are not the same as what's real, just because you really, really, really want them to be.

I suggest, too, you familiarize yourself with the actual definition of "small arms," because you don't know it.

 

[Fisher]

Based on modern usage? The usage of a semi colon has never changed and to suggest the framers didn't understand the use of punctuation marks is insulting to the framers and the document that this country was founded on.

Yes, there were various hand written versions of the second amendment sent to the states for ratification and apparently some contained more commas than others. But none had a semi colon, like Madisons original version. A semi colon is meant to separate two separate and distinct ideas in the same sentence, whereas a comma makes the following ideas/clauses suboridanent to the first idea/clause in the sentence regardless if the first clause can or can't stand alone. But LaMidnightriders is correct that the second clause does stand alone and the first clause is dependent on the second clause. Without the second clause the first clause would have little relevance since militas needed the right to bear arms for the security of the state. It is the idea of the first clause separated only by a comma that gives relevance to the second clause in the same sentence.

For more than a hundred years the courts consistently said the militia clause trumped the second clause until the NRA, who up until 1977 had mainly concerned themselves with gun safety held a convention of conservative politicians to push for a new interpretation. At first, few accepted their revisionist idea, including many Republicans and Chief Justice Warren E. Burger who called it a fraud. But the NRA kept pushing and with the 1980 election of gun rights enthusiast, Ronald Reagan and subsequently Orrin Hatch as head of the Judiciary committee who commissioned a report that supposedly proved the "long lost" intent was for individual rights to bear arms and negated the orignial intent of enumerating the rights for militias. They finally succeeded in making their interpretation the law of the land in 2008 with District of Colombia vs Heller.

The irony is that conservatives claim they are originalists and the Constitution isn't a living document that changes with the times and yet here they are changing the original intent of the second amendment to fit their agenda.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

A semi-colon instead of a comma in the second amendment would make the first part an incomplete sentence. Try harder.

 

[H. Lee White]

The premise of the OP is foolish in my opinion. A person need know very little about firearms to have a full opinion on the subject.

Given all the nonsense from the anti-gun side about 'assault weapons' - as a single example - this is clearly untrue.

 

[H. Lee White]

Regulate small arms? What are you talking about, muskeets and pistols? The framers didn't concern themselves with small arms for self defense, but rather the right for men in militias to bear arms for the purpose of state and national defense on the frontiers and from foreign invasion. Nothing else.

In every meaningful way, you're wrong. This debate has been settled, and your point of view was vanquished.
Accept it and move on.

 

[Moot]

A semi-colon instead of a comma in the second amendment would make the first part an incomplete sentence. Try harder.

Try comprehending. A semi colon would make the first clause and it is a clause separate and distinct from the second clause much the same as a period would. Whereas a comma was used as a pause in breath.

Page 92.....

A new guide to the English tongue - Thomas Dilworth - Google Books

That is how the framers of the constitution would have used semi colons and commas. The second amendment is a milita's right to bear arms, not an individuals.

 

[blaxshep]

Try comprehending. A semi colon would make the first clause and it is a clause separate and distinct from the second clause much the same as a period would. Whereas a comma was used as a pause in breath.

Page 92.....

A new guide to the English tongue - Thomas Dilworth - Google Books

That is how the framers of the constitution would have used semi colons and commas. The second amendment is a milita's right to bear arms, not an individuals.

Nonsense.

 

[Fisher]

Try comprehending. A semi colon would make the first clause and it is a clause separate and distinct from the second clause much the same as a period would. Whereas a comma was used as a pause in breath.


Page 92.....

A new guide to the English tongue - Thomas Dilworth - Google Books

That is how the framers of the constitution would have used semi colons and commas. The second amendment is a milita's right to bear arms, not an individuals.

perhaps you should take your own advice. the semi-colon you allege is so important because it woul dmake it two sentences is not. No matter how many times you say it, everything that comes before "the right" is not a complete sentence no matter how many colons, semi-colons, or periods you put into it because it is a clause. Secondly, a militia is comprised of individual citizens by definition ergo individual citizens would still have the right to bear arms under your own contrived grammar rules. Armies existed in the 1700's and I am certain the Founders knew the difference between an army and a militia since they had just whipped one of them not so long before the Constitution was drafted.....

 

[blaxshep]

No matter how you try you can not make:

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.

Mean:

A Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be well regulated .

 

[nota bene]

perhaps you should take your own advice. the semi-colon you allege is so important because it woul dmake it two sentences is not. No matter how many times you say it, everything that comes before "the right" is not a complete sentence no matter how many colons, semi-colons, or periods you put into it because it is a clause. Secondly, a militia is comprised of individual citizens by definition ergo individual citizens would still have the right to bear arms under your own contrived grammar rules. Armies existed in the 1700's and I am certain the Founders knew the difference between an army and a militia since they had just whipped one of them not so long before the Constitution was drafted.....

Re "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the sentence (independent clause) is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You are correct.

"A well-regulated militia" is not a sentence, and "being necessary for the security of a free State" is also not a sentence. A semicolon to set off either would be incorrect.