Represent The People In Assuring That Public Officers Do Not Abuse Trust Placed In T: Fill & Download for Free

Wrong again!The 2nd Amendment as with other amendments do not grant or guarantee, but define the right enumerated. Below are is a long, long read. But if you take the time to read it, you will find that the right does in fact exist and the 2nd merely states that in text.The second amendment: It’s an individual RIGHTA 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.The original intent and purpose of the second amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.The second amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century supreme court decisions, indicating that the second amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.Evidence of an individual rightIn his popular edition of Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England (1803), st. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, revolutionary war militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the second amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the commentaries, Tucker elaborates further: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense."because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,” the supreme court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every supreme court era." (source: the second amendment in the nineteenth century)(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published commentaries on the laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American founders.)Another jurist contemporaneous to the founders, William Rawle, authored "a view of the constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at west point and other institutions. In chapter 10 he describes the scope of the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms:The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.(in 1791 William Rawle was appointed united states attorney for Pennsylvania by president George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)Yet another jurist, justice Story (appointed to the supreme court as an associate justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("commentaries on the constitution of the united states"). Regarding the second amendment, he wrote (source):The next amendment is: "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."The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.As the Tennessee supreme court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."Story adds:And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the second amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (see arms, anarchy and the second amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.More evidence supporting an individual rightAfter James Madison's bill of rights was submitted to congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the right to keep and bear arms, 1787-1823) published his "remarks on the first part of the amendments to the federal constitution," in the federal gazette, June 18, 1789 he asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."a search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the second amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (halbrook, stephen p. "the right of the people or the power of the state bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment". Originally published as 26 val. U. L.rev. 131-207, 1991).Earlier, in the Pennsylvania gazette, feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The Unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where i trust in god it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The federalist papersAlexander Hamilton in federalist, no. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The Project of disciplining all the militia of the united states is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.James Madison in federalist no. 46 wrote:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Here, like story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.The federalist papers continued – "the original right of self-defense"The founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort. "the original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction.We now examine Hamilton's federalist no. 28. Hamilton begins:That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.Hamilton continues:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the second amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (for more on militia see: Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment.)Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their state governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."Connecting the dots..."the opinion of the federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . " --- the U.S. Supreme court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)Although the federalist papers were written prior to the drafting of the bill of rights (but after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.The purpose of the militia clause"collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. V. Emerson, 46 f.supp.2d 598 (n.d.tex. 1999))For more information about justification clauses see: volokh, eugene, the commonplace second amendment, (73 nyu l. Rev. 793 (1998)). (see also, Kopel, David, words of freedom, national review online, May 16, 2001.)Parting shotsThere are 3 ways the second amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the second amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period.Instead of the "right of the people," the amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the fifth amendment, had they meant to restrict the right.It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment.The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the founding period is the one interpreting the second amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a second amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.======================== Next up ===================“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.” — 2nd Amendment.When reading the Constitution, one must remember that its drafters incorporated the ideas from the National Charter, the Declaration. It had asserted that self-defense was a citizen’s right and duty — a maxim which was embodied in both the state and national constitutions.The language of the Second Amendment indicates that self-defense was the foundational principle implied. The words “Militia,” “security of a free State” and “keep and bear Arms” all contribute to this understanding.Since the right of self-defense is one of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” it will exist with or without the Bill of Rights. But the framers wanted to further secure this right, and therefore, they drafted the Second Amendment. In this Amendment, the framers either explicitly stated or strongly implied the three most common ways to secure the right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the duty to be in the militia, and the danger of standing armies. The text and context of the Amendment, supplemented with the Congressional debates, reveal this intent.The second view is the “individual rights” interpretation. The proponents of this view argue that the “right of the people” which is being protected refers to every individual citizen. Important in arriving at this conclusion is the historical evidence prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment — especially the state proposals, since they directly gave rise to the language of the Amendment. Of the states proposing a right to keep and bear arms, none restricted gun ownership to only the militia, and in fact, some states actually made an explicit request for a guarantee of a universal right.While these two interpretations differ superficially, in the end they both arrive at the same answer, that is, if the proper rules of interpretation are followed. Under the “collective rights” view which links arms ownership to militia duty, the Second Amendment only protects the right of militia-members to bear arms. But for one to then conclude this as a matter of policy would effectively divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 does not give Congress the authority to confiscate the weapons of non-militia-members, meaning that Congress can not deny any citizen of his right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the Second Amendment and the Constitution together protect every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. (Even standing alone, the Second Amendment would at least make the right to bear arms applicable to the entire male population. Federal laws from 1792 to the present have defined the militia as comprising every male citizen, not just a select few.)According to the second view, the Anglo-American history (especially the state proposals) should help interpret the Second Amendment. This would link the right to have arms to non-militiamen as well as militiamen, thereby protecting everyone’s right. Either way, therefore, both interpretations ultimately yield the same conclusion since the Constitution and the Second Amendment must be examined together. The result is a constitutional protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms.The “individual rights” interpretation is further supported by a closer examination of the text and context of the Amendment. First, the “right of the people” means everyone. Most people would agree that the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights. The right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures are rights that are commonly considered to apply to all individuals.The same must be said, therefore, for the “right of the people” in the Second Amendment. To argue that this right only guarantees a collective right, while the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights, would suggest that the framers were guilty of equivocating. (But whenever one interprets a text, one must give the benefit of the doubt to the author. This is Aristotle’s rule of interpretation. One must not assume an author to be illogical unless there are compelling reasons for such an assumption.)Second, the words “shall not be infringed” indicate that there is a preexisting right of the people which is being preserved. Even if the right to have arms only related to the militia, the laws of nature and of nature’s God would still permit an individual to use a weapon for his personal self-defense.Finally, the contextual analysis supports an “individual rights” interpretation. Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that, “They [the proposed amendments] relate 1st. to private rights.”Madison’s statement means that the Second Amendment was intended to secure a private right.The Second Amendment further states that the people shall not be denied their right “to keep and bear arms.” The words “keep” and “bear” do not mean the same thing, although they are similar in meaning. Noah Webster defined “keep” as a matter of possession: “to have in custody for security or preservation.”Meanwhile, “bear” refers to where one can keep what he possesses; “bear” means “to wear . . . as, to bear a sword . . . to bear arms in a coat.”Therefore, having defined these terms, and remembering that the Second Amendment secures the right of self-defense, one could put the following gloss on the latter half of the Amendment: “the right of each individual to lawfully possess and wear arms for his self-defense, shall not be infringed.” This is a guarantee of an individual right, and it assumes that self-defense works from the inside-out.A few words must be said concerning the nature of this right. Quite simply, a right is not a wrong. As with any right, it must be used for a lawful purpose, not a wrongful one. For example, a person can not claim a right of liberty to drive a car through his neighbor’s front yard. The right of liberty must be exercised in a lawful fashion, meaning that there are limits to that right. Similarly, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. While one may use a gun for a lawful purpose (such as in self-defense), one does not have a right to use a weapon to commit a crime.The second important provision in the Second Amendment is the statement: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”The militia of the 1700’s included every free citizen. George Mason stated in the Virginia convention, “I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”The founders believed that the militia should be well-regulated, that is, that every citizen should be trained and be vigilant, ready to exercise his citizen duty. Defense was seen as a matter of individual self-government and was a duty that everyone shared.Furthermore, a well regulated Militia was considered to be “necessary to the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment emphasized the “Militia” and the “State,” not the army and the nation. This emphasis (upon a local defense) reaffirmed the federal nature of the United States, for defense was considered to be primarily a duty for the diverse parts in times of peace.Finally, a third item which is implied in the Second Amendment is the deterrent to having a standing army. This is accomplished by the phrase, “a well regulated Militia,” because it is a well-regulated militia that will diminish the need for a standing army. Elbridge Gerry stated during the Congressional debates over the Second Amendment, “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”Thus, the militia preserved the individual right and duty of self-defense by reducing the need for a permanent standing army.By way of summary, the text and context of the Second Amendment show that the inside-out principle of self-defense lies at the very foundation of the Amendment.The right of self-defense is embodied in many of the current state constitutions as well. While forty-three state constitutions have right to keep and bear arm provisions, several have pro-militia and anti-standing army clauses as well.North Carolina’s constitution, for example, states all three: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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained.States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Washington (to name but a few) make it unmistakably clear that the right to keep and bear arms in those states applies to every citizen. For example, Washington’s Constitution states that, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”In conclusion, the right of self-defense has been embodied in the constitutional documents of the United States: the state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of them affirm that the principle of self-defense should work from the inside-out. — Source Erich M. Pratt================= And finally ======================“The concept that governments should possess a monopoly of force was not the viewpoint of Americans during the Founding Era. Our states and nation came into being because Americans decided to end British attempts to place the military in control of the civil population of Massachusetts. Americans replaced British military tyranny with civil governments dependent upon and supported by the inherent power of the people themselves. They assured that nothing like a government of force, the opposite of a free government, could ever again be set up in the United States. This was accomplished by simply protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thus assuring their ability to self-embody for effective organized defense.All eight Revolutionary Era Second Amendment predecessors, as well as the three Ratification Era two-clause proposals copied from them, were leading parts of complete Mason Triads. This context indicates the intention of both Second Amendment clauses was to assure the armed civil population’s control over government raised military force for the purpose of preventing oppression and tyranny. The First Congress, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, assured the people of being in a position to self-embody as an effective militia. Indeed, this was the very foundation of the Federalists’ polity as often expressed in their arms related mantra during the ratification struggle. A free state was ensured by such an armed populace because the people were inherently able to prevent the forceful implementation of acts that violated their rights and the Constitution. In the unlikely event such situations of force should ever arise, the people by merely defending themselves would be enforcing the supreme law of the land, and those attempting to use force against the people would be in direct violation of that supreme law, which the people had authorized.Today, to the extent that the Second Amendment’s language is considered confusing or unclear, one thing is certain. Those applying such descriptions are unfamiliar with or ignoring the Second Amendment’s extensively documented American bill of rights history and period usage of its terms. Our history conclusively demonstrates both Second Amendment clauses are part and parcel of the individual rights protections that constitute the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of these provisions resulted from state ratifying convention desires that protections of the existing state bill of rights be added to the U.S. Constitution in a Federal Bill of Rights.The relevant historical documents indicate that the Second Amendment’s clauses, just like their state bill of rights predecessors, were intended to protect individual rights against misconstruction and abuse of government powers.” — Source: The History of the Second Amendment's ClausesYou can try to twist it how ever you want but history again says you are wrong. The 2nd is an individual right. Always has been. Even direct quotes from the men that were responsible for debating it made it clear it’s an individual right meant for both an individual and collective purpose.“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, *Federal Farmer No. 18*, January 25, 1788“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”And another case where it was decided to be an individual right: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” -- Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear armsIt’s not my opinion, but documented historical FACT that I stand by and refuse to accept your or any other contrary OPINION that the right to bear arms in not an individual right.

Here you go … again!The second amendment: It’s an individual RIGHTA 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.The original intent and purpose of the second amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.The second amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century supreme court decisions, indicating that the second amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.Evidence of an individual rightIn his popular edition of Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England (1803), st. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, revolutionary war militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the second amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the commentaries, Tucker elaborates further: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense."because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,” the supreme court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every supreme court era." (source: the second amendment in the nineteenth century)(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published commentaries on the laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American founders.)Another jurist contemporaneous to the founders, William Rawle, authored "a view of the constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at west point and other institutions. In chapter 10 he describes the scope of the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms:The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.(in 1791 William Rawle was appointed united states attorney for Pennsylvania by president George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)Yet another jurist, justice Story (appointed to the supreme court as an associate justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("commentaries on the constitution of the united states"). Regarding the second amendment, he wrote (source):The next amendment is: "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."The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.As the Tennessee supreme court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."Story adds:And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the second amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (see arms, anarchy and the second amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.More evidence supporting an individual rightAfter James Madison's bill of rights was submitted to congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the right to keep and bear arms, 1787-1823) published his "remarks on the first part of the amendments to the federal constitution," in the federal gazette, June 18, 1789 he asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."a search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the second amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (halbrook, stephen p. "the right of the people or the power of the state bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment". Originally published as 26 val. U. L.rev. 131-207, 1991).Earlier, in the Pennsylvania gazette, feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The Unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where i trust in god it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The federalist papersAlexander Hamilton in federalist, no. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The Project of disciplining all the militia of the united states is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.James Madison in federalist no. 46 wrote:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Here, like story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.The federalist papers continued – "the original right of self-defense"The founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort. "the original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction.We now examine Hamilton's federalist no. 28. Hamilton begins:That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.Hamilton continues:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the second amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (for more on militia see: Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment.)Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their state governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."Connecting the dots..."the opinion of the federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . " --- the U.S. Supreme court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)Although the federalist papers were written prior to the drafting of the bill of rights (but after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.The purpose of the militia clause"collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. V. Emerson, 46 f.supp.2d 598 (n.d.tex. 1999))For more information about justification clauses see: volokh, eugene, the commonplace second amendment, (73 nyu l. Rev. 793 (1998)). (see also, Kopel, David, words of freedom, national review online, May 16, 2001.)Parting shotsThere are 3 ways the second amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the second amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period.Instead of the "right of the people," the amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the fifth amendment, had they meant to restrict the right.It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment.The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the founding period is the one interpreting the second amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a second amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.================ Next up ===================“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.” — 2nd Amendment.When reading the Constitution, one must remember that its drafters incorporated the ideas from the National Charter, the Declaration. It had asserted that self-defense was a citizen’s right and duty — a maxim which was embodied in both the state and national constitutions.The language of the Second Amendment indicates that self-defense was the foundational principle implied. The words “Militia,” “security of a free State” and “keep and bear Arms” all contribute to this understanding.Since the right of self-defense is one of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” it will exist with or without the Bill of Rights. But the framers wanted to further secure this right, and therefore, they drafted the Second Amendment. In this Amendment, the framers either explicitly stated or strongly implied the three most common ways to secure the right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the duty to be in the militia, and the danger of standing armies. The text and context of the Amendment, supplemented with the Congressional debates, reveal this intent.The second view is the “individual rights” interpretation. The proponents of this view argue that the “right of the people” which is being protected refers to every individual citizen. Important in arriving at this conclusion is the historical evidence prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment — especially the state proposals, since they directly gave rise to the language of the Amendment. Of the states proposing a right to keep and bear arms, none restricted gun ownership to only the militia, and in fact, some states actually made an explicit request for a guarantee of a universal right.While these two interpretations differ superficially, in the end they both arrive at the same answer, that is, if the proper rules of interpretation are followed. Under the “collective rights” view which links arms ownership to militia duty, the Second Amendment only protects the right of militia-members to bear arms. But for one to then conclude this as a matter of policy would effectively divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 does not give Congress the authority to confiscate the weapons of non-militia-members, meaning that Congress can not deny any citizen of his right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the Second Amendment and the Constitution together protect every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. (Even standing alone, the Second Amendment would at least make the right to bear arms applicable to the entire male population. Federal laws from 1792 to the present have defined the militia as comprising every male citizen, not just a select few.)According to the second view, the Anglo-American history (especially the state proposals) should help interpret the Second Amendment. This would link the right to have arms to non-militiamen as well as militiamen, thereby protecting everyone’s right. Either way, therefore, both interpretations ultimately yield the same conclusion since the Constitution and the Second Amendment must be examined together. The result is a constitutional protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms.The “individual rights” interpretation is further supported by a closer examination of the text and context of the Amendment. First, the “right of the people” means everyone. Most people would agree that the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights. The right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures are rights that are commonly considered to apply to all individuals.The same must be said, therefore, for the “right of the people” in the Second Amendment. To argue that this right only guarantees a collective right, while the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights, would suggest that the framers were guilty of equivocating. (But whenever one interprets a text, one must give the benefit of the doubt to the author. This is Aristotle’s rule of interpretation. One must not assume an author to be illogical unless there are compelling reasons for such an assumption.)Second, the words “shall not be infringed” indicate that there is a preexisting right of the people which is being preserved. Even if the right to have arms only related to the militia, the laws of nature and of nature’s God would still permit an individual to use a weapon for his personal self-defense.Finally, the contextual analysis supports an “individual rights” interpretation. Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that, “They [the proposed amendments] relate 1st. to private rights.”Madison’s statement means that the Second Amendment was intended to secure a private right.The Second Amendment further states that the people shall not be denied their right “to keep and bear arms.” The words “keep” and “bear” do not mean the same thing, although they are similar in meaning. Noah Webster defined “keep” as a matter of possession: “to have in custody for security or preservation.”Meanwhile, “bear” refers to where one can keep what he possesses; “bear” means “to wear . . . as, to bear a sword . . . to bear arms in a coat.”Therefore, having defined these terms, and remembering that the Second Amendment secures the right of self-defense, one could put the following gloss on the latter half of the Amendment: “the right of each individual to lawfully possess and wear arms for his self-defense, shall not be infringed.” This is a guarantee of an individual right, and it assumes that self-defense works from the inside-out.A few words must be said concerning the nature of this right. Quite simply, a right is not a wrong. As with any right, it must be used for a lawful purpose, not a wrongful one. For example, a person can not claim a right of liberty to drive a car through his neighbor’s front yard. The right of liberty must be exercised in a lawful fashion, meaning that there are limits to that right. Similarly, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. While one may use a gun for a lawful purpose (such as in self-defense), one does not have a right to use a weapon to commit a crime.The second important provision in the Second Amendment is the statement: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”The militia of the 1700’s included every free citizen. George Mason stated in the Virginia convention, “I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”The founders believed that the militia should be well-regulated, that is, that every citizen should be trained and be vigilant, ready to exercise his citizen duty. Defense was seen as a matter of individual self-government and was a duty that everyone shared.Furthermore, a well regulated Militia was considered to be “necessary to the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment emphasized the “Militia” and the “State,” not the army and the nation. This emphasis (upon a local defense) reaffirmed the federal nature of the United States, for defense was considered to be primarily a duty for the diverse parts in times of peace.Finally, a third item which is implied in the Second Amendment is the deterrent to having a standing army. This is accomplished by the phrase, “a well regulated Militia,” because it is a well-regulated militia that will diminish the need for a standing army. Elbridge Gerry stated during the Congressional debates over the Second Amendment, “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”Thus, the militia preserved the individual right and duty of self-defense by reducing the need for a permanent standing army.By way of summary, the text and context of the Second Amendment show that the inside-out principle of self-defense lies at the very foundation of the Amendment.The right of self-defense is embodied in many of the current state constitutions as well. While forty-three state constitutions have right to keep and bear arm provisions, several have pro-militia and anti-standing army clauses as well.North Carolina’s constitution, for example, states all three: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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained.States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Washington (to name but a few) make it unmistakably clear that the right to keep and bear arms in those states applies to every citizen. For example, Washington’s Constitution states that, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”In conclusion, the right of self-defense has been embodied in the constitutional documents of the United States: the state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of them affirm that the principle of self-defense should work from the inside-out. — Source Erich M. Pratt================= And finally ======================“The concept that governments should possess a monopoly of force was not the viewpoint of Americans during the Founding Era. Our states and nation came into being because Americans decided to end British attempts to place the military in control of the civil population of Massachusetts. Americans replaced British military tyranny with civil governments dependent upon and supported by the inherent power of the people themselves. They assured that nothing like a government of force, the opposite of a free government, could ever again be set up in the United States. This was accomplished by simply protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thus assuring their ability to self-embody for effective organized defense.All eight Revolutionary Era Second Amendment predecessors, as well as the three Ratification Era two-clause proposals copied from them, were leading parts of complete Mason Triads. This context indicates the intention of both Second Amendment clauses was to assure the armed civil population’s control over government raised military force for the purpose of preventing oppression and tyranny. The First Congress, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, assured the people of being in a position to self-embody as an effective militia. Indeed, this was the very foundation of the Federalists’ polity as often expressed in their arms related mantra during the ratification struggle. A free state was ensured by such an armed populace because the people were inherently able to prevent the forceful implementation of acts that violated their rights and the Constitution. In the unlikely event such situations of force should ever arise, the people by merely defending themselves would be enforcing the supreme law of the land, and those attempting to use force against the people would be in direct violation of that supreme law, which the people had authorized.Today, to the extent that the Second Amendment’s language is considered confusing or unclear, one thing is certain. Those applying such descriptions are unfamiliar with or ignoring the Second Amendment’s extensively documented American bill of rights history and period usage of its terms. Our history conclusively demonstrates both Second Amendment clauses are part and parcel of the individual rights protections that constitute the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of these provisions resulted from state ratifying convention desires that protections of the existing state bill of rights be added to the U.S. Constitution in a Federal Bill of Rights.The relevant historical documents indicate that the Second Amendment’s clauses, just like their state bill of rights predecessors, were intended to protect individual rights against misconstruction and abuse of government powers.” — Source: The History of the Second Amendment's ClausesYou can try to twist it how ever you want but history again says you are wrong. The 2nd is an individual right. Always has been. Even direct quotes from the men that were responsible for debating it made it clear it’s an individual right meant for both an individual and collective purpose.“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, *Federal Farmer No. 18*, January 25, 1788“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”And another case where it was decided to be an individual right: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” -- Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear armsIt’s not my opinion, but documented historical FACT that I stand by and refuse to accept your or any other contrary OPINION that the right to bear arms in not an individual right.

Just as it was intended by the founding fathers.The second amendment: It’s an individual RIGHTA 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.The original intent and purpose of the second amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.The second amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the founding fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century supreme court decisions, indicating that the second amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.Evidence of an individual rightIn his popular edition of Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England (1803), st. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, revolutionary war militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the second amendment:The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.In the appendix to the commentaries, Tucker elaborates further: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense."because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,” the supreme court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every supreme court era." (source: the second amendment in the nineteenth century)(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published commentaries on the laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American founders.)Another jurist contemporaneous to the founders, William Rawle, authored "a view of the constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at west point and other institutions. In chapter 10 he describes the scope of the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms:The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.(in 1791 William Rawle was appointed united states attorney for Pennsylvania by president George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)Yet another jurist, justice Story (appointed to the supreme court as an associate justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("commentaries on the constitution of the united states"). Regarding the second amendment, he wrote (source):The next amendment is: "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."The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.As the Tennessee supreme court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."Story adds:And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the second amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (see arms, anarchy and the second amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.More evidence supporting an individual rightAfter James Madison's bill of rights was submitted to congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the right to keep and bear arms, 1787-1823) published his "remarks on the first part of the amendments to the federal constitution," in the federal gazette, June 18, 1789 he asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."a search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the second amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (halbrook, stephen p. "the right of the people or the power of the state bearing arms, arming militias, and the second amendment". Originally published as 26 val. U. L.rev. 131-207, 1991).Earlier, in the Pennsylvania gazette, feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The Unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where i trust in god it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The federalist papersAlexander Hamilton in federalist, no. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The Project of disciplining all the militia of the united states is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.James Madison in federalist no. 46 wrote:Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Here, like story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.The federalist papers continued – "the original right of self-defense"The founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort. "the original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction.We now examine Hamilton's federalist no. 28. Hamilton begins:That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.Hamilton continues:If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the second amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (for more on militia see: Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment.)Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their state governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."Connecting the dots..."the opinion of the federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . " --- the U.S. Supreme court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)Although the federalist papers were written prior to the drafting of the bill of rights (but after the constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.The purpose of the militia clause"collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. V. Emerson, 46 f.supp.2d 598 (n.d.tex. 1999))For more information about justification clauses see: volokh, eugene, the commonplace second amendment, (73 nyu l. Rev. 793 (1998)). (see also, Kopel, David, words of freedom, national review online, May 16, 2001.)Parting shotsThere are 3 ways the second amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the second amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period.Instead of the "right of the people," the amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the fifth amendment, had they meant to restrict the right.It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the second amendment.The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the founding period is the one interpreting the second amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a second amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.================ Next up ===================“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.” — 2nd Amendment.When reading the Constitution, one must remember that its drafters incorporated the ideas from the National Charter, the Declaration. It had asserted that self-defense was a citizen’s right and duty — a maxim which was embodied in both the state and national constitutions.The language of the Second Amendment indicates that self-defense was the foundational principle implied. The words “Militia,” “security of a free State” and “keep and bear Arms” all contribute to this understanding.Since the right of self-defense is one of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” it will exist with or without the Bill of Rights. But the framers wanted to further secure this right, and therefore, they drafted the Second Amendment. In this Amendment, the framers either explicitly stated or strongly implied the three most common ways to secure the right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the duty to be in the militia, and the danger of standing armies. The text and context of the Amendment, supplemented with the Congressional debates, reveal this intent.The second view is the “individual rights” interpretation. The proponents of this view argue that the “right of the people” which is being protected refers to every individual citizen. Important in arriving at this conclusion is the historical evidence prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment — especially the state proposals, since they directly gave rise to the language of the Amendment. Of the states proposing a right to keep and bear arms, none restricted gun ownership to only the militia, and in fact, some states actually made an explicit request for a guarantee of a universal right.While these two interpretations differ superficially, in the end they both arrive at the same answer, that is, if the proper rules of interpretation are followed. Under the “collective rights” view which links arms ownership to militia duty, the Second Amendment only protects the right of militia-members to bear arms. But for one to then conclude this as a matter of policy would effectively divorce the Bill of Rights from the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 does not give Congress the authority to confiscate the weapons of non-militia-members, meaning that Congress can not deny any citizen of his right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the Second Amendment and the Constitution together protect every individual’s right to keep and bear arms. (Even standing alone, the Second Amendment would at least make the right to bear arms applicable to the entire male population. Federal laws from 1792 to the present have defined the militia as comprising every male citizen, not just a select few.)According to the second view, the Anglo-American history (especially the state proposals) should help interpret the Second Amendment. This would link the right to have arms to non-militiamen as well as militiamen, thereby protecting everyone’s right. Either way, therefore, both interpretations ultimately yield the same conclusion since the Constitution and the Second Amendment must be examined together. The result is a constitutional protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms.The “individual rights” interpretation is further supported by a closer examination of the text and context of the Amendment. First, the “right of the people” means everyone. Most people would agree that the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights. The right of the people to peaceably assemble, to petition, and to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures are rights that are commonly considered to apply to all individuals.The same must be said, therefore, for the “right of the people” in the Second Amendment. To argue that this right only guarantees a collective right, while the “right of the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments guarantees individual rights, would suggest that the framers were guilty of equivocating. (But whenever one interprets a text, one must give the benefit of the doubt to the author. This is Aristotle’s rule of interpretation. One must not assume an author to be illogical unless there are compelling reasons for such an assumption.)Second, the words “shall not be infringed” indicate that there is a preexisting right of the people which is being preserved. Even if the right to have arms only related to the militia, the laws of nature and of nature’s God would still permit an individual to use a weapon for his personal self-defense.Finally, the contextual analysis supports an “individual rights” interpretation. Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that, “They [the proposed amendments] relate 1st. to private rights.”Madison’s statement means that the Second Amendment was intended to secure a private right.The Second Amendment further states that the people shall not be denied their right “to keep and bear arms.” The words “keep” and “bear” do not mean the same thing, although they are similar in meaning. Noah Webster defined “keep” as a matter of possession: “to have in custody for security or preservation.”Meanwhile, “bear” refers to where one can keep what he possesses; “bear” means “to wear . . . as, to bear a sword . . . to bear arms in a coat.”Therefore, having defined these terms, and remembering that the Second Amendment secures the right of self-defense, one could put the following gloss on the latter half of the Amendment: “the right of each individual to lawfully possess and wear arms for his self-defense, shall not be infringed.” This is a guarantee of an individual right, and it assumes that self-defense works from the inside-out.A few words must be said concerning the nature of this right. Quite simply, a right is not a wrong. As with any right, it must be used for a lawful purpose, not a wrongful one. For example, a person can not claim a right of liberty to drive a car through his neighbor’s front yard. The right of liberty must be exercised in a lawful fashion, meaning that there are limits to that right. Similarly, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. While one may use a gun for a lawful purpose (such as in self-defense), one does not have a right to use a weapon to commit a crime.The second important provision in the Second Amendment is the statement: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”The militia of the 1700’s included every free citizen. George Mason stated in the Virginia convention, “I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”The founders believed that the militia should be well-regulated, that is, that every citizen should be trained and be vigilant, ready to exercise his citizen duty. Defense was seen as a matter of individual self-government and was a duty that everyone shared.Furthermore, a well regulated Militia was considered to be “necessary to the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment emphasized the “Militia” and the “State,” not the army and the nation. This emphasis (upon a local defense) reaffirmed the federal nature of the United States, for defense was considered to be primarily a duty for the diverse parts in times of peace.Finally, a third item which is implied in the Second Amendment is the deterrent to having a standing army. This is accomplished by the phrase, “a well regulated Militia,” because it is a well-regulated militia that will diminish the need for a standing army. Elbridge Gerry stated during the Congressional debates over the Second Amendment, “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”Thus, the militia preserved the individual right and duty of self-defense by reducing the need for a permanent standing army.By way of summary, the text and context of the Second Amendment show that the inside-out principle of self-defense lies at the very foundation of the Amendment.The right of self-defense is embodied in many of the current state constitutions as well. While forty-three state constitutions have right to keep and bear arm provisions, several have pro-militia and anti-standing army clauses as well.North Carolina’s constitution, for example, states all three: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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained.States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Washington (to name but a few) make it unmistakably clear that the right to keep and bear arms in those states applies to every citizen. For example, Washington’s Constitution states that, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.”In conclusion, the right of self-defense has been embodied in the constitutional documents of the United States: the state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of them affirm that the principle of self-defense should work from the inside-out. — Source Erich M. Pratt================= And finally ======================“The concept that governments should possess a monopoly of force was not the viewpoint of Americans during the Founding Era. Our states and nation came into being because Americans decided to end British attempts to place the military in control of the civil population of Massachusetts. Americans replaced British military tyranny with civil governments dependent upon and supported by the inherent power of the people themselves. They assured that nothing like a government of force, the opposite of a free government, could ever again be set up in the United States. This was accomplished by simply protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, thus assuring their ability to self-embody for effective organized defense.All eight Revolutionary Era Second Amendment predecessors, as well as the three Ratification Era two-clause proposals copied from them, were leading parts of complete Mason Triads. This context indicates the intention of both Second Amendment clauses was to assure the armed civil population’s control over government raised military force for the purpose of preventing oppression and tyranny. The First Congress, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, assured the people of being in a position to self-embody as an effective militia. Indeed, this was the very foundation of the Federalists’ polity as often expressed in their arms related mantra during the ratification struggle. A free state was ensured by such an armed populace because the people were inherently able to prevent the forceful implementation of acts that violated their rights and the Constitution. In the unlikely event such situations of force should ever arise, the people by merely defending themselves would be enforcing the supreme law of the land, and those attempting to use force against the people would be in direct violation of that supreme law, which the people had authorized.Today, to the extent that the Second Amendment’s language is considered confusing or unclear, one thing is certain. Those applying such descriptions are unfamiliar with or ignoring the Second Amendment’s extensively documented American bill of rights history and period usage of its terms. Our history conclusively demonstrates both Second Amendment clauses are part and parcel of the individual rights protections that constitute the first eight amendments of the U.S. Bill of Rights. All of these provisions resulted from state ratifying convention desires that protections of the existing state bill of rights be added to the U.S. Constitution in a Federal Bill of Rights.The relevant historical documents indicate that the Second Amendment’s clauses, just like their state bill of rights predecessors, were intended to protect individual rights against misconstruction and abuse of government powers.” — Source: The History of the Second Amendment's ClausesYou can try to twist it how ever you want but history again says you are wrong. The 2nd is an individual right. Always has been. Even direct quotes from the men that were responsible for debating it made it clear it’s an individual right meant for both an individual and collective purpose.“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, *Federal Farmer No. 18*, January 25, 1788“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”And another case where it was decided to be an individual right: “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” -- Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)Here is a typical Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee (writing under the pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"):"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…."Don B. Kates, one of our leading Second Amendment scholars, observes:"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear armsIt’s not my opinion, but documented historical FACT that I stand by and refuse to accept your or any other contrary OPINION that the right to bear arms in not an individual right.