Along with gun control has come controversy over what the second amendment actually means. Now, this is a very opinionated question, and I am definitely not a linguist or an english scholar so you do not have to agree with anything I say about this because it is purely infallible opinion.
There is the argument that because of the way the second amendment is written, it only allows people to have firearms in the context of using them for a militia. Some people take this idea even further and say the second amendment just gives citizens the right to form a militia, and not have the right to possess firearms at all. The way I see it is that the second amendment allows for citizens to form a militia, and possess and carry firearms. I see why people argue that it means you can only use firearms for militias because of where the first comma is placed. If you read the first two statements together without the third, then yes, it does sound like militias are a contingent part of having firearms. However, when you look at the entirety of the three statements, and where the second comma is placed, it would make more sense if you translate each of the three statements as independent from one another, because otherwise there would be no reason for that second comma. I think it is more accurate to say that the second amendment lists three completely independent rights: the right to form a militia, the right to possess and carry firearms, and the right for the first two to not be taken away.
Again, these are just some thoughts on the subject. Here is a quote from Samuel Adams to leave off with: