>Only to those with fundamental failures in English comprehension, which does not include the Supremes, who in Heller agreed 9-0 that it's an individual right
Or you know, to those that can understand history, and know exactly the context under which it was said, plus they know that when the justification is no longer there, the "right" is not meaningful either.
There is no longer a justification for self-defense in the US?
That would be news to a whole lot of people. In terms of effective self-defense we're now to the point that if Peruta v County of San Diego is not struck down by a 9th Circuit en banc hearing or the Supremes, 90% of the US population will live in "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes. Did you miss the nationwide sweep of this, in the modern period starting with Florida in 1987 and ending with Wisconsin and Iowa in 2010, with the courts forcing Illinois (which is now mailing out thousands of permits), and now California and Hawaii? (Sucks to be on the East Coast, Maryland and New York I think cert denied by the Supremes, New Jersey and Massachusetts cases still pending. Add the ones where it's not an issue, that's all of the Federal Appeals circuits!)
Those of us with a detailed knowledge of the relevant history know the dependent militia clause was a sop thrown to those who feared standing armies and e.g. "select militias", which are exactly what our modern police have become. They lost because e.g. George Washington, who had very detailed knowledge of the merits of militiamen and regulars, said "no way".
Might as well mention the U.K. since some of our correspondents hail from there: as I understand it, effective self-defense, that is, using a disparity of force, was judicially nullified in the '50s, and was enshrined in law in the '60s or '70s (this is what the recent "have-a-go" stuff is about). I doubt any of you have lived in a time when you could effectively defend yourself, and therefore the concept could be quite alien to you.
Or you know, to those that can understand history, and know exactly the context under which it was said, plus they know that when the justification is no longer there, the "right" is not meaningful either.