The "well regulated militia" statement appears to be given in the second amendment as a rationale for the codification of the "right to bear arms", and not a requirement. Also, it is up to the states to determine what constitutes a "well regulated militia".
To quote the Constitution (as ratified)
"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."
If you parse English, the well regulated militia phrase is clearly a justification, and does not imply specifically that the right to bear arms is contingent on participation in a well regulated militia.
The Supreme Court has ruled (via Wikipedia):
n 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
In terms of Constitutional law, you flog a dead horse.
However, even Scalia admits that no right is absolute and even this one is subject to regulation.
Rather than ban the weapons, I would look at imposing requirements on those who would manufacture and own them. Rights always come with responsibilities ... let's look at codifying some of those. For example, wanna own a gun? Then you need to:
1) Pass a test on gun safety and law surrounding the use of guns.
2) Demonstrate basic competence.
3) Pay for insurance to cover loss of property, injury, and loss of life in the event of accidental discharge.
4) Be subject to call up in the event of national or state emergency, including natural disasters.
5) Submit to periodic retraining in gun safety, marksmanship competency, disaster relief, etc.
So, yeah. Your right to have a gun would not be infringed. But having a gun means shouldering some additional responsibilities.
And while we're at it ... let's get rid of these "Stand Your Ground" laws ... because if ya got a gun, being afraid of someone doesn't mean you have the right to shoot them.
Trav
= new reply since forum marked as read
