A Detailed Reply To Michael Abbey:

There is certainly evidence that the government can call up the militia, and it's actions directed by the President when it is. But is that evidence that the government can restrict the rights of gun ownership except is service to the government? I don't think so.

Again, Michael it comes down to why "the Militia" was specifically mentioned in the Amendment. Why reference it at all if the intent was for the people to protect their person and their property by guns? Or, perhaps more revealingly, why was Militia referenced instead of person and property?

The Bill of Rights were further safeguards against the power that government could wield over the people. It seems oddly against the spirit of it that they would throw in a restriction on the people. It is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Nine Rights and One Restriction.

Not all rights granted are absolute rights valid all of the time. For example,

• the Third Amendment has the phrase "...but in a manner to be prescribed by law" during wartime. So you have one set of rights during, another during wartime.
• the Fourth Amendment has the phrase "...but upon probably cause..." and details the process where this right can be restricted.
• the Fifth Amendment has the phrase "...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..." Again, you have one set of rights as a civilian, another if you are engaged in the military.

The very rights themselves are granted with restrictions.

Even if you argue that the sole reason that the Founders wanted people armed, was to use them in service to the government when the militia was called up (which again seems against the spirit of everything they were doing), they unfortunately designated that the right resided with the people, and declared it could not be infringed upon.

I don't know how you conclude such in interpretation to be "against the spirit of everything they were doing" as the Bill of Rights clearly lays out rights as well as restrictions on those rights. It seems in that context the right to keep and bear arms is within the context of a well regulated Militia.

As for the declaration "it could not be infringed upon", to quote usconstitution.net:

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Would you agree with that assessment, or do you see the phrase shall not be infringed in a more absolute sense?