I see. You aren't understanding the 2nd amendment at all.

The 2nd amendment does not explain how a militia should be regulated. It does grant the right to militias to keep and bear arms however.

Maybe you need another read:

"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."

Put another way:
To keep a state secure it is necessary to grant a well regulated militia the right to keep and bear arms.

Hey gun hater the 2nd amend does not state you must be in a militia to bear arms.

Since the 2nd amendment clearly states a militia you have no argument unless you can eleaborate past your above statement.

Gun hater where does it say the right of the militia?

The whole second amendment pertains to the militia. Not a well regulated citizen, a fucking militia.

"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."

No, it doesn't. That's open for debate. How would you define a militia? Your not a gun hater if you are defending gun control laws either. You are allowing people to exercise their second amendment right's (be it for hunting or target practice), but under a specific set of circumstances. It's very similiar to the Free Exercise Clause under 1st amendment.

The debate of interpreting the Second Amendment in an Individual Right Model, or State's Right Model has been debated for years, and still really has yet to be interpreted by the court in future cases. So as of now, neither of you are right nor wrong. And it doesn't matter who concedes to the other in this debate, because the US Courts have not interpreted this issue yet and its not incorporated into the case law. But looking at the wording of the original texts of Madison's drafts (*) and even the later revisions of the wording during the span of the next few days or so (**) tends to lean the arguement toward the latter, and thus our founding fathers originally meant for the Second Amendment to pertain to the State's right to form armed militias and the right of the individuals to bear arms nessissary for them to serve in the militias.

***But it along with the other Amendments (esspecially the 8th) are open to debate according to "evolving standards of decency." In otherwords; back then it might have been necessary to let civilians have cannons and rifles, but now it's only necessary, or at least there's a national consensus on, civilians only owning handguns, or other more 'controlled' weapons, etc.

Well gun hater then the 2nd amend would only mention militia. But gun hater the 2nd amend does not just say militia. The 2nd amend states the right of the people.
Then start a post to discuss this.

Interesting stuff found here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

Here are some more quotes:

How much did gun manufactures make last year?