here's a literary Analysis.
"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free stateconstitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"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."
"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."
"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 a requisite to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
"The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
"The phrase 'well-regulated militia'means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
"There has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: 'Since 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 abridged'."
"As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, comparethe text of the Second Amendment to 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.'
The "'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure." There is nothing inthe sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Taken from here:
http://www.largo.org/literary.html