A Well Regulated Militia...

I recently saw a few articles and blog posts about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That got me thinking about something that I've long wondered about and I'm hoping someone might be able to provide some thoughtful, unemotional and logical insight.

First, here is the text of the amendment:

"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."

What I've always wondered is why that first part "A well regulated Militia,..." never gets talked about or factored into legal, political or personal discussions of the amendment? It is there. It's just as much part of the amendment as anything else. It seems that there is a clear linkage between the creation of a "well regulated Militia" (presumably to defend the country at a time when having a militia would be a strategic help to an army that may not be able to reach far flung and rural areas quickly) and the right to have and bear arms.

Yet, it's only the last part of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gets attention and has for pretty much the beginning of the U.S. Our nation grew up and now resides in the modern age with the persistent interpretation being that the amendment simply gives any citizen the right to have a gun. That's it. Get your gun...it's in the Constitution.

Why the disassociation of the sections of the amendment? Where is the "well regulated" part in legal or intellectual discussions? What about a militia?

I know - believe me I know - none of this line of questioning makes a difference in anything that will ever happen with the amendment. And, no...I'm not suggesting "the government should take your gun," or anything similar but, it is something that I've always wondered. Why is that "well regulated militia" part so consistently and systematically ignored?

Any dispassionate responses welcome.