This question already has an answer here:
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.
I read an interesting article on The New York Times regarding the punctuation used in the amendment above, which today interfere with gun rights and gun control discussions.
Below I quote what I read in reference to what I'm interested to.
Nelson Lund, a professor of law at George Mason University, argues that everything before the second comma is an “absolute phrase” and, therefore, does not modify anything in the main clause. Professor Lund states that the Second Amendment “has exactly the same meaning that it would have if the preamble had been omitted.”
But, according to the journalist, Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.
Question is: Under a grammatical perspective is it correct to say that "absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause," so that eventually it is untrue that the Second Amendment "has exactly the same meaning that it would have if the preamble had been omitted.”?