I never understood the logic of this

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.

It has always seemed to me that liberals take the first part of the amendment and somehow infer that it causes the second part to be null and void. The problem with their reasoning is that there is no conditional given in the first clause:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

They take it to mean something along the lines of: As long as it is generally viewed as being the case that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

But that is not what it actually says. I think this is the key to the liberal mind-set. They (for whatever reason) don't think private ownership of weapons is good and therefore the constitution must properly be interpreted to agree with their view.

It would be more straightforward for them to argue that the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be removed from the constitution, than to make the ridiculous claim that it doesn't mean what it clearly says.