Okay, I hold this amendment near and dear to my heart, though I don't own a powder-burning weapon. I fail to see how anyone can misconstrue the phrase "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first portion of the sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," only applies to militia service. At the time of the Bill of Rights (in 1791), our Founding Fathers knew that the service of a "standing army" would be needed from time to time. Said "militia", comprised of young and able-bodied men from around the country would, by necessity, need to be "well regulated". I.E. they needed to be organized and armed. Let's not forget though, in 1791, that staffs, walking sticks, swords, and knives were all considered to be acceptable "arms" whenever the need arose.
Today, try carrying a sword around anywhere! You can't. It's forbidden. Need to carry that bid hunting knife on your belt? You can't. It's forbidden. Where in the hell did the federal government and state governments get the idea that they could forbid any weapon they chose?
In fact, where does it say in the Constitution that either the State or Federal government is in charge of "public safety"?
Here in California, you can have a gun in your house, but you can't store it loaded. You can have a gun at your place of business, but it can't be stored loaded. If you need to shoot it in order to protect your property, in most municipalities, it's ILLEGAL to discharge a firearm. Pull out a sword for your own defense and a lawyer somewhere will have kittens! You're allowed the option in CA to apply for a "concealed weapons permit" but, because decisions are left to the office of each county sheriff, in Riverside County, where I live, they haven't granted a CCW permit in decades. In Orange County, they're granted almost automatically. This can't be "constitutional". When will someone challenge it using the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment?