The Second Amendment does NOT protect the individual's right to Bear Arms

To start, I need to define what a "well regulated" militia. At first glance, this appears to be a semblance of a "organized" by the state body of men. After all, a "well-regulated" army hints at central planning. But in the 18th century, that meant something different. Here is an excerpt of Federalist Paper No. 29, written by Alexander Hamilton: "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. "[1]Or a quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress: "That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. "[2]It is clear from these two passages that a "well regulated army" does not mean that it is run by the state, but rather that the unit is a trained and disciplined one. "Well-regulated", would, in today's terms, be referred to as "well-functioning". [3]Further, it is not only the organized militia that may carry arms. Looking again at the U. S. Code, Title 10, Section 311, there are two classes of militia:The classes of the militia are: (1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) The unorganized militia which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. [4]To conclude this point, a well-regulated militia simply means a well-trained militia, and the term "militia" in the Second Amendment encompasses both the organized militia and the unorganized militia. However, there is still one more problem that needs to be addressed - that is, those that aren't covered in the definition of "militia". To start, originially, yes, women did not have the right to bear arms as they were not full citizens, nor were they covered under the definition of militia. However, the nineteenth amendment amends this rule:The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. [5]In today's age, women can serve right along men, and this extends the definition ot militia to them also. Further, the fourteenth amendment gives everyone the immunities and privileges of the U. S. I mentioned in the last round that the fourteenth amendment encompassed second amendment rights, giving all citizens the immunities and privileges of the U. S, both young and old (which covers your point about old people). To again quote the opinion of the Supreme Court ruling in Nunn vs. State of Georgia:". .. the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state. "So while the militia is important, the Second Amendment does not wholly cover the milita. It covers each individual. Sources [1]: Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers, No. 29. [2]: . http://memory.loc.gov...[3]: . http://www.guncite.com...[4]: . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[5]: . http://www.law.cornell.edu...