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.<BR>
<BR>
Let's break it down --<BR>
<BR>
"A well regulated militia" -- Sounds like "gun control" (and to a lesser extent "gun toting idiot control") to me.  Sounds like it was intended that the people who were armed and part of said militia should be well and carefully regulated.<BR>
<BR>
"being necessary to the security of a free State" -- Maybe in 1791, but not so much now.  The statement could be intended to qualify the existence of the militia in the first place.  In other words, if it's not necessary then the whole militia idea is moot -- and with it, the keeping and bearing of arms.<BR>
<BR>
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -- In 1791, the protection we enjoy from our modern military today didn't exist.  People needed to be armed and organized into a fighting force (the militia) in order to defend the USA from potential threats -- foreign and domestic (e.g., Native Americans).  Not so much necessary any more.  All arguments that suggest it is still necessary fall flat.<BR>
<BR>
The bottom line, however, is that it is in the Constitution -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  However, so is the "well regulation" of it.  So let the people have their guns, but regulate it.  I don't see how you can have one without the other.<BR>
<BR>
Sometimes "regulation" means eliminating things that are no longer functional, practical, or wise.<BR>