Typically, we do a poor job of understanding
3. That language is driven by culture, not the other way around. Meaning that interpretation, for the Constitution and at least the Bill of Rights [1 - 10A], must be read and interpreted from an 18th century syntax, not a 21st, but concluding that the same purposes of the 18th century might just still be shared in the 21st.
"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."
What is regulated, militia, necessity, security, and free state? What is a right, the people, keep, bear, arms, and infringed? Look these up in a dictionary that will give you 18th century meaning. The OED, unabridged, for example. Merriam-Webster won't cut it. Few dictionaries today will give you the complete etymology of every word in the lexicon. The OED does. That's why it occupies fully 20 volumes of definition, etc.
The pre-emptive phrase is conditional, but is not the only purpose of the concluding phrase, but was, at the time [1780s] critical to the populace. Do think, for example, that a "well-regulated militia" needed to have members with their own weapons [is an "arm" to be understood to be only a gun? - look it up - for the period - 1780s], and should those weapons be, themselves, "well-regulated," as in good working order such that they can be utilized at a moment's notice for whatever purpose? For example [from my OED]: 1766 J. Trusler Difference between Words
I. 25 By arms
, we understand those instruments of offence, generally, made use of in war; such as fire-arms, swords, &c.
If their arms are in good working order, can they be used for other pursuits, remembering that Safeway was a couple of centuries away? Or did the concept of "infringed" imply only that arms could be used only for purposes of a militia? It says, "not infringed," doesn't it?