Originally Posted by copestag
yes well regulated........... it doesnt say the government has the power to regulate....... self regulated militias are ideal.......... as stated earlier..... the constitution doesnt give me my right to bear arms........... it tells the govt they have NO power whatsoever to stop me
it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.
Feel free to ignore the first half if you like (you certainly won't be the only one), but if you do you can't really use the second as a justification for you having the right to bear arms. (you are of course free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...)