The English may be plain, Amos, but it still gives rise to different interpretations. I suspect that my command of the English language is every bit as good as yours; you certainly may argue the merits of my position, but I think your claim that I lack a basic understanding of the English language is over-reaching.

If the clause about a well regulated militia is merely intended as an introductory observation, then why are the other amendments not preceded by such observations? Shouldn't the First Amendment, for example, include some introductory observation about why it's important to have free speech? Knowing how intense were the debates over the language of the Constitution and the original ten amendments, should we be so quick to dismiss this language?

For the record, I spent eight years in the US military, where I qualified as an expert on the M16 rifle, .45 caliber automatic, and 9 mm pistol. I enjoyed shooting, and I took an oath to bear arms in defense of my country. Since leaving the military, I have spent most of my adult life writing, interpreting, and enforcing federal and state regulations (in English, no less). I think I am as qualified as any other layman to interpret the language of the Second Amendment. Let's skip the disparaging comments, shall we?