NRA: We will oppose semi-automatic weapons ban

[NickB79]

82. I never said I agree with it, just that's what the law says

Though I would note that this conflict was brought up before the Supreme Court recently, and they found it not an issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[118] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[119] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[120]

Under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[20] This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[121]

The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.[122] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[123]

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[124] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[125]

So basically, you are "well-regulated" if you allow yourself to be properly disciplined and trained if so called upon by the government in time of need.