Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should not apply the Second Amendment to American citizens

I love how you mentioned it sounded more communist. I find that quite hilarious since there is someone on my debate who believes that communism is the best thing ever. now, to the debate at hand. "I do not agree with this. If you read it a couple times, you notice a comma then it says the right of the people to … This could mean that it is saying a Militia is the right of the free state, and people have the right to have and use guns." I do notice there is comma, however, no where within the space of the comma does it say the people of the united states. no where in the second amendment does it say this. "If we have peace officers today, then where are they when hundreds of people get murdered, houses get robbed, and people are raped. Where are they when that happens? The police can't be there at the right time all the time, so people would need a safe help incase something did happen." People kill people with guns. That solves for argumentation with murder and as well as crossing that over to homes being robbed, and even being raped. If citizens did not possess "guns" then they would not be able to do this. I'm going to also add that I never stated anything related to guns. I used the words "arms" quite frequently. The definition you do provide do NOT relate to the use of guns. For clarification reasons im going to define the word firearms "A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) i do concede that this definition speaks of guns but it also speaks of a weapon. Could you not say that a cannon could be capable of firing a porjectile and uses an explosive charge as a propellant? or possibly a firework? Going back to your question of how citizens can protect themselves without the use of guns. Police officers. I showed above that citizens who do not posess these "guns" we can rely more on those who are there to actually protect and we as citizens not become vigilantes. (citizens who take the law into their hands) This is how more people are murdered which increases our population in prisons. Now to rebuild my case up: The second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A well regualted militia can be translated into a force that protects the citizens of a free state. Can we say that police officers, troopers, rangers, and highway patrolmen are a form of a well-regulated militia? Yes we can. Simply because the protect the citizens of a well-regulated militia. The second amendment was produced during a time frame in which there was battle on american citizens front yards, quite literally. Majority of those people in the United States were part of the military, at leat the men were. If the second amendment was to be applied to the citizens of america they would have put that in the clause when it was written. It wasn't, therefore citizens do not have the right to "bear arms" unless they are part of a "well-regulated militia."