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

I will begin with astatement of the Second Amendment:"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."[1]First, we need to define what a militia is. The U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311 defines it as:"...all able-bodied males at least of 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens."[2]In addition, the founders of the Constitution meant for the militia to have arms provided by themselves, and not the government. This indicates two things: One, that the individual must have access to guns, and two, that the militia is a private, not federal institution that runs on private government.[3]This flows into the argument of whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right. It is commonly assumed by constitutional scholars that amendments 1-9 are relegated to the people, while only amendment 10 is relegated to the states. It is necessary to look at the Tenth Amendment:"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."[4]If the Second Amendment was more of a collective right, it would have been more likely to have appeared in the context of the tenth amendment. While there is more than enough evidence to support the individual rights position, there is not even one bit of evidence that the Second Amendment was intended exclusively for the protection of the states and not the individual.[3]Looking at something less abstract than a debate on individual and collective rights, let's see the application of the Second Amendment both in English Common Law and in the Early Government. To begin with, the individual's right to bear arms has been a feature of English Common Law for over a millennia. Sir William Blackstone comments: "Of the absolute rights of individuals: 5. The fifth and last auxiliary rights of the subject... is that of having arms for their defense..."[3][5]Beginning with Alfred the Great in circa 870, English Law required, "every able-bodied male citizen of the kingdom... to arm himself at his own expense." Mary Tudor, the daughter of Henry VII, circa 1550, required, "the citizen militia to have firearms..."[3][6]These same principles were repeated in America. "In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and, in 1644, it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed." America, even after its independence, relied heavily on English Common Law for writing the Constitituion, and major components, including the Second Amendment, are based almost solely on English Common Law.[3][7] The founders supported the individual rights position as well:1. Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." 2. Samuel Adams: "The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to … prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."3. Patrick Henry: "...the great object is that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun."4. George Mason: "...to disarm the people -- that was the best and most effective way to enslave them."5. John Adams: "...arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... [for the defense of the nation, the overthrow of tyranny or] private self-defense."[3]James Madison, the father of the Consitution, has this to say about the interpretation of the Second Amendment: "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." He goes on to say that to critcize those other countries by saying: "...that are afraid to trust the people with arms."[8]Many more founders and commentaries by other noted people go on about the individual right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. The Early Congress seems to agree with this view, as they are the ones who defined the militia to be all able-bodied males. When Congress spoke of the militia, they spoke of a traditional concept of an armed populace, a one where every citizen was capable of bearing arms. Further, it was not to any formal group, such as the National Guard. It is from this militia, essentially an armed citizenry that appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizen owners of firearms.The Early Courts further support this view, ruling in a 1837 case about the constitutionality of a Georgia law forbidding the sale of pistols (Nunn vs. State of Georgia), says: "...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." Even the Fourteenth Amendment backs this up:"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[9]An example of how this applies to the Second Amendment's statement on individual rights is the Black Codes - laws enacted by southern legislatures following the Civil War that placed resitrictions on newly freed African Americans, including a prohibition on their right to bear arms, which would render them defenseless against ever increasing assaults. "Congressman after congressman, including the Senate sponsors of both the 1866 Act and the fourteenth amendment, expressed their outrage at the denial of the freedman's rights to arms and their consequent intention to guarantee that right. In summarizing what it would accomplish, the Act's House and Senate sponsors both cited and employed Blackstone's classification of the right of subjects, stating that these essential human rights were being conveyed."[3][10][11]To conclude this point, "...the Congress of 1866 [showed] that the fourteenth amendment which they had enacted five years earlier encompassed second amendment rights."[3][10]In conclusion, the Second Amendment is a statement of individual rights for a privately maintained militia force, a view which is supported by the founders of the Constitution, early Supreme Court cases, and the subsequently ratified Fourteenth Amendment. Sources[1]: http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2]: http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3]: http://www.guncite.com...[4]: http://www.law.cornell.edu...[5]: Blackstone, W. Commentaries, p. 123.[6]: Gottlieb, A. The Rights of Gun Owners.[7]: http://www.guncite.com...[8]: The Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 243-4.[9]: http://www.law.cornell.edu...[10]: Halbrook. The Jurisprudence of The Second and Fourteenth Amendments, p. 21-8.[11]: Congressman Globe. 39th Congress, 1st Session.