[kawligia]

I haven't been here in a while so I have only skimmed through most of these posts. But here are my general thoughts:

The 2nd Amendment reads "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."

There almost was no federal government to begin with. People were afraid that even a federal government of limited powers would grow too large and infringe on the rights of the people. The federal government was agreed on and formed by the Constitution only when there was a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be quickly formed to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of the PEOPLE. It was the limited nature of the federal government that protected the STATES. The states maintained all powers except those expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Thus, the Bill of Rights is almost entirely a way to protect individual rights. That alone is strong evidence of the 2nd Amendment's intention to protect individual rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very carefully worded documents. The words "people" and "state" are used deliberately, as is the word "militia." In the 2nd Amendment, the word "people" is used in contrast to the "militia." If they intended to protect the rights of the "militia" only, they would have used the word "militia" again, not the word "people."

Also, the Bill of Rights was supposed to be simple and concise. If they wanted to protect only the state's rights to have a militia or the rights of militiamen to have weapons while "serving" in the militia, they would have said it in a MUCH more direct fashion. Something along these lines "Congress shall pass no law restricting the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms" or "The rights of militiamen to keep and bear arms for the defense of the state shall not be infringed." That is not what they said. In no other place in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights did they use such vague language as is required under the "collectivist" interpretation; an interpretation which would make the 2nd Amendment an aberration. The Constitution cannot be interpreted to assume that words are used mistakenly or superfluously.

What the first clause of the 2nd Amendment was designed to do is to tell us WHY the 2nd Amendment is there. It is saying that because we simply must have an armed fighting force to protect us, the people must also be armed. The idea is that a government of the people could not survive if the government itself could not be opposed. The difference between a REQUEST and a DEMAND is the having the WILL AND ABILITY to force compliance. If the people have no means with which to oppose tyranny, by force if absolutely necessary, then the demand for freedom becomes nothing more than a request.

That is also why the 2nd Amendment is placed where it is. The freedom of speech embodied in the 1st Amendment is the first line of defense when the government starts to go wrong. Only when that fails to keep the government in line should we turn to rebellion as a last ditch effort to maintain freedom. Those two things, in that order, are what protects all other rights and liberties. Their placement as 1st and 2nd Amendments was not accidental.

And no, it is not just about self-defense, though most people use that approach because they don't like to talk about the ugly truth of potential rebellion. The right to self-defense is a fundamental right but I don't believe the 2nd Amendment has that protection as its MAIN purpose. Not all rights are included in the Bill of Rights because it was not meant to be an exclusive list of all rights. If you notice, the rights to freedom and privacy are not mentioned specifically. That is because it was understood that they, like the right to self-defense, were fundamental rights that were so well ingrained that they didn't even need special mention. Even in England before the American Revolution there were recognized rights to privacy and self-defense. The rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights are the ones that England violated, not the ones they upheld.

Lastly, even IF you want to consider the first clause as more than prefatory explanation of purpose, but a substantive qualification, the argument that the people can be stripped of the right to keep and bear arms still fails. The militia, as it was understood back then, was composed of all able bodied men. The militia was NOT a standing army that was issued service weapons. They were regular citizens that banded together voluntarily, or involuntarily through conscription, for the common defense. Until actually conscripted, the militia was nothing more than the total pool of all people capable of being conscripted. In order for them to be effective as conscripts, they had to have their own weapons and know how to use them. So even under that interpretation, the PEOPLE have an individual right to keep and bear arms so that they were ABLE to take them up when needed.

And no, the National Guard is NOT our version of the militia. The National Guard is equivalent to a standing army that only acts infrequently. Even though times have changed and even our modern militiamen (those drafted into service) are provided weapons and trained in their use, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms has already been granted. Even if you feel that the change in the times has rendered the right granted by the 2nd Amendment unnecessary, you MUST go through the amendment process to change it. If a vested right can be taken away through mere interpretation, then ALL of our rights can be interpreted away just as easily.