I am by no means a gun enthusiast (I don't own a gun, nor do I foresee a scenario where I would). I support the 2nd Amendment only because I love the Constitution. I was rather surprised by your interpretation of the phrase "A well regulated militia..." I greatly esteem your knowledge and wisdom on Constitutional matters, so your reading of the phrase makes me question my understanding. I always interpreted "well regulated" to mean "capable of performing its intended function" (eg: well regulated sleep) rather than "subject to rigorous legal constraint" because of the forceful, unambiguous language that follows. It seems to me that interpreting it to mean "subject to rigorous legal constraint", followed by stating that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't square up. Help me understand why your interpretation is accurate (I am genuinely asking in hopes of learning)!