Heh.
From your reference:
Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions.
And those decisions have been reversed how many times? Thanks.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."
It really doesn't seem ambiguous to me. The militia gets to be armed. When it was written, the people arming the militia were the militiamen themselves. Now, such is not the case, but the Constitution guarantee of an armed militia for each State remains. I seriously do not see what the controversy is.
