The Right (or not) to Bear Arms

Does the Second Amendment apply to states, or just to federal enclaves, such as Washington D.C.? This is a hot topic right now and there are many disagreements on gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says "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." So does this give the individual the right to bear arms or just the militia?

Since the crime rate in Washington D.C. is so high, a law was enacted that made it illegal for individuals to own a handgun. The Supreme Court over ruled this decision and decided owning a gun was allowed again. Then, the city of Chicago attempted to enforce the same law Washington D.C. tried to enact. The National Rifle Association said "no way" and tested that this law was overturned in D.C., and should not be enforced in Chicago. NRA Executive President Wayne LaPierre said, "'Without the court's review, millions of Americans may be deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms... I have every confidence the Supreme Court will say that it is a freedom to be enjoyed by the entire American People, not just those in federal enclaves'".

A "freedom to be enjoyed"??? I don't believe owning a gun and putting so many people's lives in danger is something to be enjoyed. There have been so many stories about a parent or child accidentally shooting him/herself or another member of the family, or even someone shooting another on purpose. It is so dangerous to own a gun and I don't understand the logic of owning one for "protection". Owning one just puts you in a position to hurt or kill another person. I do not know how the writers of the Constitution meant for this amendment to be interpreted, but I think that only militia should be allowed to have the right to bear arms.