-> Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
-> security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
-> adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
-> the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
-> asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
-> maintaining a milita. 
-> a free state.

Yes, I agree the first half of the amendment does modify the noun 
militia.  But the difinition of modify that applies to how "well regulated" 
modifies "militia" is:
	to qualify or limit the meaning of.  For example, "wet"
	modifes "day" in the phrase "a wet day."

The amendment is similiar to the statement:
	A wet day, being annoying, the right of the people to keep
	and wear boots, shall not be infringed.
So how does a dry day pertain the right to use boots?  Similiar,
what does the "unorganized militia" have to due with the right to
own guns?

-> The sentence [in the Second Amendment] doesn't restrict the right, or
-> state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
-> than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
-> right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
-> Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
-> The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
-> amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
-> to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
-> In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
-> bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.

No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed
is defined as:
	To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath, 
	an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate.
	To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach.
This definition implies the following of some form of existing 
agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance.  Boundaries 
or limits of behavior are set by society as a whole.  The word 
"unconditional" implies no agreements or all previous agreements 
are off, which is the opposite.

The words used in the first amendment are much stronger, i.e.,
"congress shall make no law," are much stronger.  They clearly 
	         ^^^^^^^^^^^
imply "unconditional."  If the writers of the amendment, wanted 
unconditional whay didn't they says, "congress shall make no 
laws pertaining the the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
The second amendment implies a sort contract between the people
the people and the state.  The bigger part of the contract is
the people have the right to overthrew the government and its laws
at any time.  To guarantee this right, the laws cannot stopped
the people from forming a "well regutaled militia."  The duties
of a "well regulated militia" to the government are descussed in 
Federalist No. 29.  And the limits of of the governmental control
of the militia are descussed in Article I Section 8, Article II 
Section 2, and the Second Amendment of the constitution.
