This is an opinion of a non-lawyer. Use of this information is at your own risk. But I'm a risky fellow when it comes to my liberty and rights.
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.
1st of all, forget about the commas. Yes, the commas are stupidly placed and confusing. The original wording had one comma between "State" and "the".(1)
2nd, the Militia is covered under Title 10, Chapter 13 of the United States Code. The "National Guard" is covered under Title 32 of the United States code CLEARLY separating the two.(2) The National Guard is NOT the Militia. According to Senate Document 2807, "Such a reading [That the National Guard is the Militia] fails to note that the Framers used the term “militia” to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."(3) The National Guard IS a branch of the United States Army; NOT a militia.
In D.C. v. Heller, as you may know, the Supreme Court rightly judged that you do not have to be in the "Militia" to own a gun and protect your life and your family. They were also right that you cannot carry a gun for any purpose, but you can carry a gun at anytime despite their statement to that affect. You cannot carry a gun to rob a bank. You cannot carry a gun to kill people with a different skin tone. You cannot carry a gun to take revenge. You can use a gun when you, your family or another innocent person is endangered by bad people. You can use a gun when someone attempts to carjack you. You can technically use a gun to protect your home, but common sense tells you to make sure they are an actual threat. This all gets into natural law which is an entire article in itself. Other specific reasons for the Second Amendment can be found in Federalist Papers No. 24 and 29.(4) To wit: To protect yourself from an evil government.
Let us examine the wording. The right of the people (people in this case means me and you. Legal American citizens are the only people covered under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; NOT ILLEGALS.) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why is that? Because the security of a free State depends on it. Reading the Federalist Papers referenced, it is clear that the militia should be armed and trained, as much as possible, to any standing army that might exist.
For the security of a free State. In other words, if you want to stay free, stay armed. You do have an implied duty to train and be part of keeping your community safe.
That leads us to treaties. In the Wong Case and the Cherokee Tobacco case, the Supreme Court clearly stated that treaties cannot violate the Constitution of the United States of America. There are probably others I am unaware of. I refer specifically to the papers that kids color brown in schools today rather than read. That is NOT the Constitution, but it will suffice for our purpose in this discussion since the Second Amendment is an amendment to those four pieces of parchment. Signing or voting for a treaty limiting ammunition purchases, marking ammunition, limiting the caliber of your handgun or rifle, limiting magazine or drum capacity or giving enemy forces the location of weapons in your home is clearly in violation of the security of a free State; or the purpose of the Second Amendment. It is a treasonous act and I do not have to abide by treasonous acts.
Federal gun laws making it difficult for me to have any weapon in the arsenal of the United States military is clearly against the explanation that the founders gave for the Second Amendment. They are unconstitutional and anyone who voted for them are treasonous.
The Supreme Court has declared in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (5) that you have NO constitutional right to police protection. So why hire police? Don't get me wrong, there are many police officers and deputies and military that understand the Constitution and try to do a good job protecting your rights and protecting you. There are others not so inclined. Thus the right to self-protection.
Most dangerous, of course, are the flakes they hire for the "Forest Service Police," "National Parks Police," perverts for TSA and the list of standing armies goes on. Btw, National Parks Service, Forest Service, Food and Drug Administration, etc. do not have a right to exist and Congress does not have Constitutional authority to enact them. Again another article.
The Second Amendment was enacted for one purpose stated within its text. The security of a free State. Any attempt to over-ride that is treason. Arming massive standing armies to be used against Americans is treason because you ARE making war against the United States by attempting to disarm the citizens while arming central govenment agents to the teeth.
I could go into the arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, but you can find them on the Internet. Among the biggest complaints was turning control of the militia to Congress. What are they supposed to do, btw? "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." Where are my arms? Why are you trying to take them away? Sounds like a clear violation of your oath, Congress.
I'm a veteran and I support and defend the Constitution. Come and get me.
(1) SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
(2) SEE: http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml
(3) Concerning the Militia; Glen C. Davis; available at LULU.com; Shameless self-promotion.
(4) SEE: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
(5) SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales