Before you reply, I want to point out that this is not trolling/flamebait or w/e but an honest question.
Why do some citizens of the USA believe they have a "God-given right to bear arms" when the actual second amendment was not written in such a way as to condone the carrying of firearms by civilians.
The second amendment goes as follows:
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.
(from http://www.usconstitution.net/)
The key bit here is the Well regulated Militia. This amendment was made because when it was written, in the 1790s, the USA did not want a standing army, although they lived in a hostile country whereby a standing armed force was necessary. This amendment was a way round the problem, a way to get a properly trained and armed militia to use in times of conflict or defence, in part due to the contribution made by militias, or minutemen in the war of independence.
I think a lot of the confusion comes down to people just quoting the second half of this amendment, nicely ignoring the militia part. Another ( admittedly forced) example of this is just quoting half a famous line from Shakespear, when Romeo says "Yonder window breaks," now, he is a vandal rather than someone who claims to be in love, although considering the romance lasted 3 days and was between a 17 and 13 year old. That is beside the point.
Anyway, back to the 2nd amendment, I'm genuinely interested as to what others, mainly Americans, think about this, I'm sure my post isn't original in its nature but I'm wondering, I'm also aware that the right to carry is far too a contentious issue for anything to ever actually be done about it.
tl;dr basically, the right to carry results from misreading the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, is this purposeful or do people just genuinely not take an interest in a feature that is supposed to be a major part of their history?
Watch out! It's an 8th grader!