The right to bear arms

Okay, gahbage had another debate like this, and it looks interesting. Unfortunately, I can't challenge him at this moment, so I am bringing this debate to the world. Parameters: The right to bear arms: For PRO, I have to defend that it is an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. CON must show that it is a militia-only right. Contention 1: The grammar of the second amendment strongly suggests that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The version of the Second Amendment that was ratified by the states reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is important. The first clause, talking about well regulated militias being necessary and all that is an ablative absolute. This is a Latin construction that prefaces the main clause of a sentence by stating the time, condition, or circumstances of an action being described in the main clause of the sentence. So, if it was meant to be a militia only right, our Founders must have been horrible at Latin, which we know is not true. The Founders were well versed in Latin, and knew exactly how to use ablatives. That means that in modern English, the second amendment would read: "Because well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free state, the people have an undeniable right to bear arms." In short, it is saying that the people have a right to keep and bear arms so that they could form militias to defend themselves. Contention 2: The word choice of the Second Amendment suggests that it conveys an individual right. The second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. If it were truly a militia only right, it would read "the right of militias..." It says the people, which means everyone, not just militias. Contention 3: The historical situation of the second amendment suggests that it is an individual right. The second amendment was written in 1789, and there are two conditions from those times that suggest that it is an individual right. A. The first fact is that only 14 years ago, the militias at Concord and Lexington lead the rebellion against British power. These militias were not military sanctioned groups, they were simply thirty men standing on the town commons with their hunting rifles and shotguns. In the founders' time, militias were just groups of people that got together to defend themselves. The founders felt that the right to actually have weapons is necessary to form a militia. B. Also, around that time, pioneers were moving west over the Appalachian mountains. They were stirring up the anger of the Native Americans, and to deny them the right to have a rifle to defend themselves would be a death sentence. James Madison, the writer of the amendment, was from Virginia, a state that was leading the way in pioneerism, he would have wanted to guarantee the settlers protection. Contention 4: At the time it was written, it was meant to be an individual right. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution, and one of the first members of the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment gave an individual right. Also, William Blackstone, an 18th century British jurist said that the right to bear arms was an individual right. The founding fathers were avid followers of Blackstone, and agreed that it was an individual right.