supreme court wrong: no individual right to a gun versus state

Secondly, many of my sources are links through the pro-gun site, guncite. com, this is for sheer expedience, as they have gathered over the years much evidence, rather than link to books or reports that may be out of print, guncite has copied them in complete form to each of the relevant links. By no means is this my only source, but it is a secondary source of importance. For openers, I will start with the Bill of Rights, and quote several of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II 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. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In Articles I, II, IV, IX, and X the phrase 'of the people' , or 'to the people' appears. By the opinion of my opponent, only in the 2nd Amendment does this phrase not mean the individual. I doubt very much my opponent would claim that the individual has no right to speech or religion as promised by the 1st, or that the individual has no right privacy as per the 4th. No, in each other case, 4 of the 10 amendments I might add, the phrase means individual but in my opponent's mind, and the minds of many like them, not in the case of the 2nd. Why, a critical thinker must ask, does the phrase refer to the individual in every other case, but not in this one? The reply almost always comes from the same concept, a qualifying remark in the beginning, 'A well regulated militia'. So of course we must ask what this means, and what it meant at the time. To start, let us end the idea that well regulated meant what modern anti-gun people would like it to mean. From [1,3] we learn that the term well regulated militia refers to a militia that is well kept, and equipped. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. " What about the militia? Who was the militia? Well the shortest answer comes from George Mason who said [9]: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. " " Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778 Richard Henry Lee agreed[9]: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves" and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms" The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. " " Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788 Of particular interest is George Mason, his quote should not be taken lightly as he was the actual co-author of the 2nd Amendment. We have this far established that the militia is the whole of the people, and the term 'well regulated' means properly equipped. It stands to reason that if the militia is the whole of the people, then the term 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' must refer, regardless of context to the people. But as individuals, or as an organized militia? The answer lies in the second part, 'to keep and bear', the individual in the militia was expected to maintain his own weapons and keep them, ever at the ready, and in good working order. Logically it follows that the individual must be the entity to which the right to keep and bear arms applies. If the right wasn't an individual one, why choose to use the same wording used four other times to refer to the individual. More to the point if the right wasn't held by the individual, what purpose would it serve to codify it as law? Keep in mind the Bill of Rights entire purpose was a trade off by the Federalists to the Anti-Federalist movement, a guarantee of rights to be held by the people against the government. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights to anyone, but rather prohibits the government from encroaching on said rights. [5,8] The supreme court simply upheld that the right is pre-existing, and protected by the 2nd Amendment. [10,11,12] Unused sources, [2,6,7] are external perspectives, I provide them for clarity of depth regarding the issue at hand. Source 1 : . http://bearingarms.com... Source 2 : . http://www.guns.com... Source 3 : . http://constitution.org... Source 4 : . http://www.guncite.com... Source 5 : . http://guncite.com... Source 6 : . http://wiki.monticello.org... Source 7 : . http://www.seraphicpress.com... Source 8 : . http://spot.colorado.edu... Source 9 : . https://www.nraila.org... Source 10: . http://www.awesomelibrary.org... Source 11: . http://guncite.com... Source 12: . http://www.guncite.com...