Reading the Second Amendment as a statement in which every word counts follows from the opinion articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).

Some insist that the first clause is absolute, therefore non-operative; a throwaway.

In that case, it could just as easily be read to say "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed", with the two central phrases simply supportive of a WELL regulated militia. Unregulated non-militia gun ownership is not thereby protected. The "right of the People to keep and bear arms" is the throwaway absolute then, as a simple descriptive, supporting of the guarantee of a militia and a free, secure country, not the other way around:

When large loud groups go to DC packing assault rifles and promise a "Second Amendment Solution" to the outcome of the electoral and legislative process I consider them terrorists and traitors to democracy itself. I begin to understand the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part real well. I respect those serving in our well regulated militias. I also support well regulated private gun ownership, since the Amendment supports our right to a militia, security, and freedom, but does not prohibit private gun ownership nor its regulation.

"Some years ago I read an article in a right-wing publication where the author asserted with an apparently straight face that 'well-regulated' meant 'well-equipped' in the 18th century."

From Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American English Language:

"REGULATE, v. t. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
"2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
"3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade ; to regulate diet.
"REGULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions."

See the second item under each heading; it does not seem to me that "to put in good order" could be said to exclude "well-equipped". Dunno what good a militia (which consists of the armed citizenry, experienced in the use of their arms, called together in time of need) would be without working weapons in good repair, oiled, etc.

We've focused on the syntax, but the semantics might end up being the most important part.

I am not very familiar with legal language, but the phrase "to be seized of …" seems to be the exact equivalent of the French "être saisi de …", a legal term applying to an administration, judicial body, etc. This is the passive form of the transitive "saisir … de …" meaning approximately "to inform (a body) of (a contentious matter) and enjoin it to deal with it". So some department of the UN has been thus informed and enjoined at some point, and since the matter in question has not yet been resolved, the department decides to continue to consider itself enjoined to actively work on resolving it. (Of course, this does not mean that the matter will come to a speedy resolution, but it is not being put aside).

I'm glad to hear they are actively seized. I wonder if anyone has tallied how many matters the UN is actively siezed by (or with) at present.

So clearly that's the background of the amendment. But what's interesting is that the writers of the amendment felt called upon to justify it — something they didn't do anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. They could have just left out the opening clause. Were they already thinking about the consequences of an unrestricted right to bear arms?

At the risk of sounding pedantic by waxing bibliographical, I should like to point out that the contrast between American and French notions of democracy was discussed at some length in Dick Howard's 2002 book The Specter of Democracy. Dick Howard is one of the few American political philosophers who have a deep knowledge of French political thought.