What part of "A well regulated militia" does the Supreme Court and the NRA not understand?

The actual text of the second 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."

It was explained by Alexander Hamilton in 1788 in the following way:

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

It is very clear from historical context what the Second Amendment was for. Our government was designed as a system of failsafes, wherein the legislative branch answers to the executive branch answers to the judicial branch. From historical documentation, it is abundantly clear (and agreed upon by almost all serious constitutional scholars) that the second amendment was designed as a final fail safe, a way to ensure that all three branches would always answer to the people. I mean, the people who wrote it had just fought a war, for years, against a tyrannical state militia that had fought to take away their guns.

Even without the argument that the Second Amendment has no meaning today (which I don't believe in any case) all impartial statistical evidence conclusively shows that more gun control will have no effect on violence.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

The National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

The ban on weapons enacted by the UK has greatly curbed gun violence itself, but not violence in general. After the gun ban, violent crime rates became much higher, and in 2009 the UK's violent crime rate was even higher than South Africa's.

In a study done by the University of Chicago, it was found that 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. You are 11 times more likely to be wrongfully shot by a police officer than an armed citizen.

The argument that gun owners are more likely to injure or kill themselves or a family member is an often sited statistic, but does not actually stand up to analysis. It comes from an article published in the 1985 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, and has been lambasted in peer review for cherry picking data. The study is so old that it's findings also do not represent the statistics of today, wherein a legally armed citizen is more likely to lawfully prevent a crime than a police officer is.

Criminologists are the experts who study crime, criminals and their motivation. They make a career on the collection and analysis of statistics surrounding crime. All of the criminologists who have ever changed their opinion on gun control have moved from a position supporting gun control to the side sceptical of it's effectiveness. The longer a criminologist remains in their career, and the more statistical evidence they see, the more likely they are to move away from gun control as a solution. Notable criminologists such as Dr. Gary Kleck and James Wright, who were strong advocates for gun control at the beginning of their careers, are now on record stating that what they have learned in their years of study is that gun control is NOT the answer.

I think the problem is not a misunderstanding on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, it is that gun control advocates find any data they can, be it 28 years old, or just based on statically flawed data; and take it to heart because it confirms the way they feel without actually verifying the data. It's the curse of America today - we have all the information at our fingertips, but people just take whatever lies and misinformation they hear as gospel and refuse to take the time to verify it themselves.

Be careful Waco, my mail has been full of angry gun lovers telling me I'm not an American and that I ought to be shot myself. Why is it we give the most power to those who least deserve it.

You are correct, you don't want to eat venison with a mouthful of lead in every bite.

And I find the idea of target shooting with a semi-automatic, more than a little amusing.

In fact they did find, courtesy of the huge NRA lobby, that the part about the well regulated militia wasn't so important

In 2008 the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

In short they ignored the clear intent of the second amendment. Unilaterally changing its meaning, leaving us saying foolish slogans as our children are killed, and our streets and homes are places where we look over our shoulders wondering if the next kid in a black outfit is going to pull out a gun.

And shoot a score or more with his daddy's assault rifle.

"ferocious deer" LOL I like that!

Anyway, I frankly think that the writers of the constitution were talking about the army-type people and not the ordinary guy. It just bothers me when liberals blame guns for the problem when guns aren't the problem or, certainly, not the worst part of it. We've seen how strict gun laws, like in Chicago or NYC, don't do anything to stop those who use guns to kill. So, honestly, they will always be able to get them. Criminals and most crazy people don't walk into a store to buy a gun. Crazy people who are bent on murder will find a way. I also agree, though, that no one needs a 100 round magazine or a high powered weapon at home. There's no reason to collect them, either.

Yet, I've got a brother-in-law who has them and others. He's problem one of those who has cleared the shelves of those magazines. And my sil is not stable and has been hospitalized many times. He even sent the whole family, kids included, NRA sweatshirts one year for Christmas! They must have been expensive because they are well made, but where could I wear it? I was auctioning off sweatshirts and t's that I'd gotten on my travels and no longer used for good behavior in class, but I couldn't auction off that, especially in the inner city! I gave mine to my husband who now uses it for changing oil and other dirty jobs.

What part of, The 2nd amendment exists to give the population the means to defend against a Tyrannical government, not shoot deer, don't you understand?

And since when did you join a militia against deer?

The founding fathers considered an armed citizenry to be the last defense against a tyrannical government! The military is controlled by the government they will not defend you against it.

For the record my rifle only holds 18 rounds, I don't hunt but it's absolutely deadly against paper targets!

You have to go back to the concept of "militia" as it was understood in 1789.

The part where a militiaman was armed with a pistol and musket.

so whats your point, arms is defined as any thing you can carry,

If the government gets them, then so should its people.