What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Wimps and politicians are afraid of people who can defend themselves.

The part you neglected to include. The entire amendment, as passed by the house and senate, reads:

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.

Alternatively, as ratified by the states, the amendment reads:

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.

The comma and capitalization differences alter the emphasis and are a famous typo in the constitution. The first one seems to indicate that the right is to keep and bear the arms for the purpose of having a well regulated malitia. The second one seems to indicate that the right is a personal right and the reason we need it is to quickly raise well regulated malitias.

That's what's "so hard to understand", as you put it.

Personally, I think the whole amendment should be repealed, but that wasn't the question.

The thing that is "hard to believe" is that so many people (like you) are apparently unaware what the Constitution ACTUALLY says, which is ; "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 support the right to gun ownership, but I fear that if too many gun enthusiasts keep claiming The Constitution gives them the right to be "armed to the teeth", the Supreme Court will eventually limit gun ownership to members of militias, which the government will then regulate. There are so many sensible gun owners who will support them in that effort, that people who claim a right to bear (for instance) grenade launchers will simply be over-run and disarmed by both the government and the population with common sense.

The problem is with the entirety of the provision. "In that a well armed militia is necessary, the right.........."

The question is what is a militia? And must the weapons be stored at an Armory?

I cite these because the opposition does.

My question is; What the hell does an assault weapon have to do with hunting or target practice when they have one and only one purpose and that is to kill people?

I'll agree that a militia is entitled to them, but they should be kept at an guarded armory.

Just as you left out an important qualifier (the first phrase in the Second Amendment), you left out WHO treats you like a criminal. That is an important distinction.

Some of your neighbors may view you with caution, as they would any person who is "armed to the teeth" but who does not indicate - by police badge or military insignia - that he is trained and subject to lawful discipline.

If, however, it is the government that "treats you like a criminal", then you should consult with your lawyer.

Maybe its the preamble that causes the confusion.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...

the first part which reads a state militia being necessary and thats also the part you didnt quote

some people just dont look good in tank tops