Well you quoted it so you must have read it , but for you to say that definately implies that you havn't read it Tex .
If it was blunt and to the point then you wouldn't have had people debating what the hell it actually means since it was written would you .
People will debate the meaning of anything. The amendment is about as clear as you can get. Saying someone debates the meaning doesnt distract from the fact that it is clear and blunt. The supreme court not once has said it means anything different.

Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
Quoted for the truth.

The fact that your saying the 2nd amendment contradicts itself though does imply you havent read it. Please feel free to point out anywere in that amendment were it contradicts your right to bear arms or the states right to form a militia.

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.
Also very simple sentence construction. The 2 subjects, your right to privately own firearms and the states right to protect itself with a militia, will not be infringed upon.