The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to maintain a Militia, not gun ownership

Pro is presenting his argument that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of the People to maintain a militia, not Individual gun-ownership as many take it to mean. Therefore, the Amendment in question cannot be considered as evidence for private Individual gun-ownership. This is a position that is held by many "gun-control" advocates, as well. However, it is a mistaken interpretation and false premise that leads to an incomplete conclusion. The 2nd Amendment does protect the Individual"s right to keep and bear personal weapons. I will show why this is the case. The 2nd Amendment 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. " To start with, a Militia is basically a civilian defense organization of able bodied Individuals, and at the time the amendment was written this meant men aged 17-45 approximately. They provide their own weapons, supplies, and skills and are available to be called up at a moment"s notice if necessary; they are unpaid volunteers, taking part in the above organization of their own free-will and judgment to decide to do so. What follows is a breakdown of the 2nd Amendment as applied to the above description: "A well-regulated Militia," this would be those who voluntarily provide themselves to that organization. Then, "being necessary to the security of a Free State," gives the purpose behind the requirement for such an organization to be created. Next, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms," means that in order for these able bodied Individuals to provide for the defense they have a valid claim to keep possession of their personal weapons and any necessary supplies they need to strengthen their capabilities. And the last statement, "shall not be infringed," is the conclusion and direction for what that means to the "centralized authority" established by the Federal Constitution; this means personal weapons (gun-ownership) shall not be violated with the unjust forceful removal of those weapons from those Individuals who see fit to own them. This protection of the Individual right to gun-ownership has been further supported by those who were involved in the beginnings of this country; St. George Tucker was such a man. He was wounded in the Revolutionary War (American War for Independence) having served as colonel in the Virginia Militia. Later, he became a law professor at William and Mary, then, sat on the Virginia Supreme Court as a justice from 1804-1811. In 1803, he published a five-volume edition "Blackstone"s Commentaries on the Laws of England". Here is an explanation of what he wrote as well as an excerpt: "To Blackstone's listing of the "fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject . .. that of having arms . .. suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law," Tucker in a footnote added: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " He cited the second amendment, noting that it is "without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. " He added: "Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. " In discussing the second amendment, Tucker wrote: "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . .. . The right of self defence 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. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour 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 authorize 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. " Tucker thus merged self-defense, prevention of standing armies, and protection from oppression all into a single concept--the generalized right of keeping and bearing arms as protected by the second amendment. "( . http://www.guncite.com... , St. George Tucker quotes) Those who are so opposed to Individual gun-ownership, the ones who are the most public, outspoken, and seem to have an ulterior motive sometimes show themselves for what they are and speak to why keeping the Individual right to gun-ownership is so very important. Here are two quotes that speak for themselves: Pro Gun Control: "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. " Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3. ________________________________________ "If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things. " "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! " Adolph Hitler Chancellor, Germany, 1933(. http://cap-n-ball.com... , quotes of gun-control proponents) This is what the 2nd Amendment was written and put into place amongst the other Bill of Rights, to record and ensure the protection from. As Patrick Henry put it in "American Patriot": "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? " Patrick Henry, American Patriot (. http://cap-n-ball.com... , Founding Fathers on Arms, quotes) In conclusion, the Individual human being is the only one that can act and is the only one who has any rights whatsoever; a group, does not have any sort of "rights" and is only a label of a collection of Individuals to begin with. The 2nd Amendment is a basic and simple statement that recognizes this fact and those who seek to control others must first disarm them. Throughout history these facts were becoming clearer and the authors of the 2nd Amendment put it into words and on paper.