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

My opponent's new argument seems to rely solely on one principle - that the Second Amendment only applies to a well-trained militia. However, while this was the purpose of the Second Amendment, nowhere is it indicated that the right to bear arms only applies to members of a well-trained militia. Let's look at the Second Amendment again:"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] It is easy to see from this that the Second Amendment, while intending to protect America by allowing for a "well-regulated" militia, it is the "right of the people" to bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the right of solely a well-regulated militia that is not to be infringed. To better illustrate this idea, let's look at the original version of the Second Amendment:"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. "[2] It is clear that it is the right of the people, and not solely the militia to the Second Amendment. Basically, my argument stands on two points here:1. Firearms are property. Therefore, we have an unalienable right to it as long as it does not conflict with the principles of life and liberty. 2. My opponent cannot provide any evidence (from the founders or otherwise) that the people's right to firearms are contingent on the existence of well regulated Militia. In other words, my opponent cannot prove that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that the Second Amendment only protects the "well-regulated" militia's right to bear arms. But that still leaves one final question unresolved. What is "the people". Since the rest of amendment 1-9 are worded so that "the people" refers to each individual (i. e. an indidivudal right), it is necessary to state that the Second Amendment regards the people as each individual and is an individual right. For example, "'The people' in the Fourth Amendment obviously refers to an individual right. (The phrase 'in their persons' means people themselves [their bodies] cannot be unreasonably seized or searched. )"[3]Therefore, the Second Amendment is an individual right, and this case is strengthened by the Fourteenth Amendment (argued in the two previous rounds). To conclude my argument, my opponent relies only on emotions, saying things like ". .. only 14 hours of training are required to apply for a gun license" to make his argument. However, he provides no proof that the Second Amendment only applies to a well-trained militia. All and all, the Second Amendment was phrased and interpreted to give the people (the unorganized militia) the right to bear arms, and this is confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment is an individual right, and applies to everyone who is a U. S. Citizen, as protected by the Constitution. The Second Amendment does protect the individual's right to bear arms. Sources [1]: . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2]: . http://www.guncite.com...[3]: . http://www.guncite.com...