Willravel

A well regulated militia: I *think* this means an organized militia, possible state or even nationwide, with the task of defending the country from any threats forign and domestic, without any ties to the military. The problem is that a regulated militia can't beat the US military. Only small, disconnected cells can stand a chance against a military such as ours. This means that 10,000 men with guns marching would lose, where 12 men with expolsives in trucks could win. Does this mean that we shouldn't have a militia? Not really, but don't expect to win any battles with your guns registered and your intent in the open.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed: Here's where we run into a problem. Does this mean that the militia has the right to oppose the state, or does it mean that the individual has the right to heep a 9 mm in his house? The bottom line is that we don't know. The supreme court has stayed away from this like Thomas Jefferson stayed away from white girls. I personally think that the second amendment gives us the right to oppose an oppressive regeim in power, not unlike the 13 colonies opposing and going to war with the UK. Can I prove it? No. Can I make a case for it? Sure, but it would be no more or less of a case than dksuddeth makes for the inaliable right to carry guns.

It's a stale mate.