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

This is concerning the tangent about Guerrilla warfare versus the Standing Army. My opponent made the point that the reason the modern armies tend to fall prey to such tactics is because they are attempting to minimize collateral damage, but I say this is largely not the case and add that civilian deaths are what create such an enemy as the guerrilla fighter to begin with. This is open for another debate perhaps and I would look forward to such, however, the topic is about the 2nd Amendment. The basic foundation of this Amendment, as well as, all of the Bill of Rights, was based on Individual inherent "rights" that the authors recognized as untouchable; so, they wrote it down on paper stating this. Now, does this mean they won"t be ignored or deliberately stepped on? No, as a matter of fact, these rights are violated constantly today; as my opponent did point out, concerning the 2nd Amendment. My opponent also, argued earlier that this Amendment is antiquated, seeming to imply that it was not necessary in today"s time; however, the question should be asked, why has no other country invaded the United States in the last 200+ years? Basically, brute military force will not work by itself and so the push for laws to violate these rights, such as, the 2nd Amendment continues ad nauseum. Many of the founders recognized that the only way this country would fall is from within. This certainly seems to be occurring today with the types of things that have been done outside of the congressional route. If foreign troops come here it will be through our own "government" people bringing them here and they will act on some "authority" outside of our own Constitution. This is more subtle than a direct invasion and many may not see it happen. So, refusing to acknowledge any sort of infringement on the 2nd Amendment is needed more now than ever before. The premise that this debate is based on falls short of this and gives the enemies of personal Freedom, ammunition to eradicate it and gain further control over our lives. To sum up, here is the premise statement: "The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to maintain a Militia, not gun ownership." I have shown why this is a flawed interpretation and that it leads to an incomplete conclusion. The amendment in question concerns Individual Rights and has to when maintaining a Militia in the interest of the "People." If the Individual right to keep and bear firearms is negated then, the "Peoples" right to maintain a Militia will necessarily fall flat on its face; for it is the Individual who makes up the "People" to begin with. It is also, the Individual who will defend hearth and home, fighting the aggressors every step of the way. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is a written protection meant to ensure and record the Individual right to keep and bear arms, this leads to the people in general and they create a defense organization that is referred to as a militia. This same debate was fought out when the Federal Constitution was ratified and those who recognized this and other rights, pushed hard to get the Bill of Rights installed. It was meant to keep those "government" people from over stepping their bounds; unfortunately, a person may have to take up arms in order to stop it from going further. Most decent human beings do not wish to do the latter, except as a final and last resort; as happened at the battles of Lexington and Concord.( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) Thank you once again to Pro, for giving the opportunity to debate this topic. I will leave it to the voters now to decide the victor of the debate.