"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 say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The distinction between people and militia is intentional. While all the people are considered part of the militia, in practice there will only be a part of the people who choose to keep and bear arms. An even smaller part of the people will be actually trained to use those arms for military purposes. Lest the government should decide to define the militia as only those people trained in military use of their weapons and deny gun ownership to the rest the word people was used.
In fact the fear of such mischief was so great that during the debate over the adoption of the Bill of Rights, representative Elbridge Gerry objected to the phrase "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" in the proposed amendment. He feared it would give the government pretext to define who was religiously scrupulous and deny arms to those people. The phrase was eventually dropped by the Senate.
Tuco: Of course I think everyone should be allowed to have their own nuke. But then, only the super rich, like Donald Trump could afford one. Just think how that would change the current Presidential campaign :)
Difficulty score 21. No green.
DING. Two loners of five, a loner of four, and a not-too-easy-to-spot unique rectangle. I had to take a nap to finish this one. 27.