As for Miller being purposely mis-cited, here you go:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

According to 1998 research and testimony by Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and a well known individual gun rights proponent; the Supreme Court has ruled in passing in 22 out of 27 times while quoting or paraphrasing only “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” language of the Second Amendment without ever mentioning the militia clause, and this treatment has evidenced clear support of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and not as protecting a collective right.

Any idiot knows that the Second Amendment clearly means an individual’s right to bear arms. Settled.

The Bill of Rights tells us what the FEDERAL government can’t do. Abolishing the state militia system of defense is one of the things it can’t do. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Miller (1939), the obvious purpose of the Second Amendment was the continuation and effectiveness of the state militia forces.

In 1965, the Supreme Court said that the National Guard is the modern militia of the Constitution:

“The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art.I.8,cl.15,16,of the Constitution.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Maryland v. United States, 1965)

In 2003, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Supreme Court as authority to make a similar pronouncement:

“We begin our consideration of this appeal with full recognition that the national guard is the militia, in modern-day form, that is reserved to the states by Art. I,8,cls. 15,16, of the Constitution. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S.41,46 (1965).” (Fifth Circuit Court of Apppeals, James H. Lipscomb. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (2003))

Think about it: the First Amendment says that individuals have a right to speak, assemble, etc. The Third Amendment says that an individual doesn’t have to allow a soldier to stay at his/her home. The Fourth Amendment says that individuals are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Et cetera.

Finally, ask yourself this: since all of the Bill of Rights tells us what the government CAN’T do to us as individuals, does it make any sense to interpret the Second Amendment as saying that the government WILL allow the army (militia) to have guns?

You say, “What these twits fail to take into account is that in the late 18th century, well regulated meant well armed.”

There is an ongoing effort by many Guns Unlimited folks to fabricate bogus history about the meaning in 18th Century America of the expression “well regulated militia.” As the Founders themselves used the term, a well regulated militia was one that performed in accordance with well written militia law. Writings of the time supply a multitude of examples of that use of the term. Here I will post an excerpt from an unimpeachable source ” George Washington:

“For want of proper Laws in the Southern Governments, their Militia were never well regulated; and since the late Troubles, in which the Old Governments have been unhinged, and new ones not yet firmly established, the people have adopted a mode of thinking and Acting for themselves. It is owing to this, that when a Summons is issued for Militia, those only turn out that please, and they for what time they please, by which means they some times sett off for their homes in a few days after they join the Army. From this State of facts, you will perceive, that I put no great dependance on the Militia from the Southward, and must, therefore, once more intreat you to endeavour to prevail upon Two thousand of the Militia of your State to march immediately to Peekskill:”(George Washington to Johathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut, March 6, 1777, from The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745 – 1799, John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor)

Further I have noticed that Ron Paul may be the only candidate who would challenge and repeal many restrictive gun laws.

In closing as a former resident of Blacksburg, VA it is my belief if the students or teacheres had been armed many lives would have been saved.

Liberalism is surely a form of mental illness…