'Analytical'

Subjective: I go further ('Alexander Hamilton'), and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various ”exceptions to power” which are not (of need) granted: and on this very account, would "afford a colorable pretext to claim" more than (that which) were granted. For why declare that “things shall not be done” which ("when") there’s no (opposed) power to do?

Statement: “A well-regulated Militia [comma], being necessary to the security of a free State [comma], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [comma], shall not be infringed”. . .

There are hyphens, commas or brackets used in the course of th declarative employed which allows for the reader to understand what action's intended by the author. . .

i.e. “the rights of the people shall not be infringed” as it’s difficult to understand how any power might be observed between a militia of "States & Government" when the driving force intended's the betterment of a free thinking and Universal citizenry. . ?

Question: Is it right to place 'armed insurrection' in the Second Amendment when the founding fathers "as Hamilton’s contention" clearly sought when placing trust and logic in the ordered liberty of a free thinking and educative society. . ?