Then why is the part about the militia in the amendment? The amendment implies that BECAUSE we need a "WELL-REGULATED" Militia citizens can own firearms. That also implies that the militia and the citizens comprising the militia will be trained.

You see that is the problem, the amendment can have several different interpretations. The Conservatives on the court go the way of the radicals at the NRA, but it DOES mean they ignore a portion of the amendment.

Any student of history would know that what was MEANT by the amendment was to allow citizens be able to protect their towns and farms from foreign (at the time British) intervention by forming Militias, trained and regulated. That meant long guns and muskets.

And militias are comprised of individuals, of people. Therefore the people are trained and "regulated."

So people should be allowed to have machine guns, tanks, RPGs, etc. without any training or regulation of who these people are that have them? That is madness to me.