Well, who da' hell woulda' thought?

[CaptainTruth]

11. And the necessary to the security of a free State part too?

I'm no expert, but from what I've read the whole idea of State militias "being necessary to the security of a free State" was because a Federal army could present a threat to the States if it was used maliciously to attack individual States, so the Second Amendment allowed States to form their own well regulated militias to ensure their security, which in this context meant defend the State from attack by Federal troops.

For example:

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

[link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|]

It's funny how constitutional originalists don't seem to ever be origionalist on this amendment.