Second Amendment.

While I am not a Constitutional Scholar I am a native speaker of the English Language. So I think that with regard to sentences written in English I have some ability to assess them and discern their meaning. That being said, here is the Second Ammendment to the Constitution:

"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."

It does not seem to be a sentence so much as it is four clauses:
1 A well regulated Militia
2 being necessary to the security of a free State
3 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
4 shall not be infringed

Is that even a sentence? I know that it is four clauses. But do these four clauses a sentence make? And since there are four clauses, which is the main clause? What are those other clauses doing?

Here are some possible combinations I have devised in the three minutes in which I have thought about this:

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

Which is the correct read? I think it depends on what is the main clause and what the other clauses are doing. Is the primary focus on militias? Is the primary focus on the right to keep and bear arms?

I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the primary focus, the main concept being stressed. The rest of it modifies and clarifies, through a lack of clarity, what is necessary.

My guess is that the focus is not "Everyone ever ought to have guns always" but rather "States need to be Free" and the result of that is that gun ownership is required. But I could be wrong.