As you alluded to, "well-regulated" at the time meant something that functioned well; however, something you seem to have forgotten is how militias function.

  In a professional standing military, you can afford to take in any Tom, Dick, and Harry that can't shoot, and you can afford to throw ammo at them until they don't suck. In a militia, you don't have that luxury. You get what you get, and there isn't much funding for training, much less actual equipment, as most militia are banded together for an emergency post-haste with equipment on-hand.

  Position 1) The right is necessary in light of training requirements.

  If the people can't shoot, how much use are they in a militia? You can only have so many cooks and back to carry a load. Clearly then, without a citizenry capable of practicing skill at arms on their own time and dime, the likelyhood of raising a functioning militia on short notice is dismally slim. Lastly, if you were to pull together a militia of people who grew up scared that their uncle's .45 was going to jump up and start shooting children, nuns, and their puppy at any moment, I'm fairly certain that such a force would break upon first contact due to lack of nerve and inflict minimal casualties anyone other than themselves due to lack of training. This is one of the reasons for the 'well-regulated' clause.

  Position 2) The right is necessary in light of logistical requirements.

  In short, the logistics of maintaining an effective short-notice militia are a nightmare. As stated previously, militias were usually called up in rediculously quick order with whatever they had on hand. In the vast majority of areas, there were no armories were everything was stored, short of a place for their cannon, if they had one, which was usually privately owned as well. (gasp) Instead, everyone brought what they had at home. Hard to muster an effective militia if you have no weapons.

  Also, I'd take issue with your idea of what a militia is or is not. Technically, if one were to attribute gun-ownership to everyone in the military, by definition then, it would be a vast number of unrelated gun-owners, though I do believe you meant related more like organizationally related as opposed to genetically related.

  In that case, your case still fails:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

US Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1 > Chapter 13 Â 311 Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    According to current US law, the unorganized militia consists of everyone who is a citizen from 18 to 45, gun-owner or not. Somehow I don't think you were aware of this, much less the fact that you are technically obligated as a militia member the moment you reach the age of majority. Kinda puts a different spin on the draft, eh?

  Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-gun variety like to throw out the National Guard as being the militia, seeing as the Federal Government aborbed state militias into the National Guard in the 1800s; however, if one paid close attention to the founding documents, the militia at the time were all run by the states. The National Guard is run like the bastard stepchildren of the US Army, a Federal organization. Seeing as the militia at the time were state-based, how could the National Guard possibly be what the founders envisioned? Keep in mind that the National Guard did not exist until 1903, over a hundred years after the Constitution was written.

  I'm sorry if your lack of knowledge of both the functioning of a military unit, US law, or your closely held political beliefs got in the way of the truth; try again, this time without the blinders on.

Changed the English language, eh?

  Hardly.

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.

Look at the clauses:
Clause 1: A well-regulated Militia
Clause 2: being necessary to the security of a free State
Clause 3: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Clause 4: shall not be infringed.

Clause 1 is used as noun, clause 2 as an adjective modifying section 1.

Clause 3 is being used as a noun, and acts as the subject.

Clause 4 is the predicate to section 3.

  The first two clauses together are referred to as the justifying clause.

  Keep in mind the use of well-regulated at the time, which meant "well functioning" not "Holy crap, add moar red tape!"

  Also, keep in mind that the Bill of Rights, as written, lists entirely individual rights, which would make sense, seeing as the Bill of Rights was written to calm down the anti-Federalists who would be pretty upset at how powerful the current Federal government is compared to the states.

So, in shorthand using section #s for brevity:

(1 modded by 2) justifying 3 and 4.

There's really no way you could possibly try to misconstrue it to any different and maintain any level of intellectual honesty... I mean, seriously, without any editing, do you think ((1-2)-3), 4 makes any sense at all?

  To pound the point a little further, simple word substitution makes it pretty obvious:

"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the self-governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

  Can you look at that and with honestly tell me that substitution doesn't mean that people should be able to own any book they wish?

    Or rather, would you try to tell me that surely there should be reasonable restrictions to that as well?

  Perhaps we should restrict people's access to books with unnessisarily large amounts of words in them like anti-2nd amendment types want to factory capacity magazines? Factory cap mags? Yes, factory cap mags. They only become high-capacity magazines when you compare them to the anemic 3/5/7/10 shot magazines less gunfriendly states impose on their people.

    Or perhaps, ban the ones with pointy edges because someone might get hurt, like bayonet lugs were on the ban list in 94. Bayonet lugs. Seriously. Has anyone ever heard of a drive-by bayonetting? If the whole idea was crime prevention, when was the last time you heard of someone getting bayonetted in the news?

Or maybe just the ones with really big multisyllabic words like some people want to ban firearms over a certain size? Like somehow someone could reliably shoot down aircraft with a .50cal rifle. My favorite was seeing an interview with some anti-gun type from the Brady campaign insisting that people could knock down a 747 with a single shot from a .50cal. I'm pretty certain they were the kind of person who believes Kennedy was killed with a single bullet too.

  Maybe we should ban book series, like they banned automatic weapons? But only the one written after 1986. Every other one, you can own if you write a $200 check to the Dept. of Alchohol, Tobacco, and Books... which enables you to own shorter books (short barrel shotguns/rifles), some books with objectionable content and/or really big words (destructive devices), soft book covers to keep the book from banging around (silencers) and things that just might not be a book at all but it kinda looks like one ("Any other weapon).

    Or clearly, we should ban only the books that get straight to the point with little fuss (real assault-type weapons), but unfortunately in the process of doing so, only ban the ones with scary covers that remind us of those mentioned previously (what the '94 AWB did instead)?

  I think perhaps some people need a good civics lesson so they can find out what the Founding Fathers really intended for this country, and then they should be left alone in a dark room for a bit so they can let it sink in just how far we've strayed from the path the founders collectively wanted for us.

  It saddens me that so many are so willing to discard their rights for so pathetically little reason. And once those rights are gone; they're gone. If you can't devise some way to get them back quickly, you'll likely never see them again. Why? Because future generations will grow up never having that right in the first place, and never understanding why it was important in the first place. After all, they grew up just fine, yes?

  Don't get me wrong, we've done many, many good things, many mighty things, but those first 10 Amendments were things so dear to the founders of this country, that they were etched into the very Constitution it stands on, the very constitution I swore to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic almost a decade ago, but the logic used to strip so many people of so much of what God has given them sickens me. The fact that so many fail to notice this happening is sad, but worse yet are those that roll over and bleat harder for the government to take more because someone/something offends them, or because something frightens them and they're not willing to do anything about it themselves or they never learned the real definition of tolerance.

    So few people seem to realize that according to the framers of the Constitution, your rights came from God, not the US Government. If that's the case, under whose authority does the Government strip you of your recognized rights?

  I'm sure many will try to come up with some childish or inane attempt at something witty to explain away what I said, or just plain insult me... do as you wish; those of you who wish to learn need to start comprehending instead of just reading... and then wake up the sheep around you to the reality of what has happened.