The Second Amendment... The right for every citizen or just for the military?

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.

The language is confusing. Help me out.

Okay, it is no so difficult if you ignore all the things you think you know about the 2A. A lot of people have agendas on this.\

The right is for individuals. Or better said, it prevents the US govt from infringing upon an individual right. This does not mean that individuals can do what they like with guns. What is protected is this.

The right to keep arms protects the ownership of guns. Ie the US govt cannot prevent an individual from keeping arms (before due process, ie being convicted in court) or buying arms. However this does not mean that certain arms cannot be banned, as long as the market is not distored so the ordinary person cannot keep a weapon.
This is the first clause, the second clause is the bearing of arms. This protects and individual in the same manner as keeping arms, to be in the militia. Not to carry arms as some suggest. Carry and conceal is not protected (the supreme court has said this), hunting is not protected, self defence (from this amendment) is not protected.

it might sound a little strange but actually is very logical.
The reason for the 2A is to protect the militia, the last check and balance on the federal govt. It is there so the people can fight against the govt if the govt becomes bad.
So they protect the weapons, so the militia will always have weapons (article 1 section 8 allowed the US govt to arm and disarm the militia itself) and it protects the personnel, so there are people to use these weapons.

The founding fathers mentioned this when talking about religious scruples (they wanted to prevent religiously scrupulous people having to be in the militia).

First congress discussion on 2A
鈥淢r. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of the militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures, with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.鈥?br>
Also individuals cannot form their own militias, this has also been said by the supreme court, it is only the right to be in the well regulated militia.

A militia has nothing to do with federally funded or run military. So I would say the right of the people. The Constitution was written by the People, for the People. Why would the 2nd Amendment be written for the military but the others be for the people...?

Also the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, the National Guard was an act of Congress in 1903.

I hope this helps...

http://www.youtube.com/user/DOUGandFRIEN...

The militia consists of all males between 18 and 45, including those who aren't in the organized militia (National Guard) or the active duty branches.


TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 搂 311

搂 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are鈥?
(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.

I am neutral on the decision, but based on where I live find it almost necessary to have a firearm on you along with concealed weapons permit because of the crap that goes on here. Think of it this way: No matter how it's written people from the 1700's never expected firearms to be as advanced as they are today. Would it make sense for them to state that this country's military is allowed to have weapons? When you think of military, you start to think of weapons. If we didn't put it in the constitution would that mean that the U.S. military wouldn't be allowed to have weapons?

Very debatable but here are my two possibilities:
1: They wanted to allow groups other than the military to have the right to bare, such as gun clubs, contractors such as Black Water, etc. and other groups in which you had to be a member to use firearms.

2: They wanted every citizen to have the option of owning a firearm without having to join groups etc. but did not expect such firearms as today.

I lean more towards 1.

The Constitution clearly differentiates between the people, the military, and the militia,,,,,The second amendment says the states have a right to a milita seperate from the federal military and,,,comma,,,the people have the right to own and possess firearms.

It has been settled, by the high court of the land. the United
State Supreme Court. You have a right as a citizer to own a gun. The Federal Government has place some restriction on who may legally have guns.

This is a matter of heavy debate.
You won't get a final answer here.
The courts have been more or less pretty silent on the matter.

In most places in the US, most law abiding folks are permitted to own certain kinds of firearms.

It means for every citizen regardless. An in-depth examination of the Federalist Papers clearly shows this.

The supreme court is going to rule on exactly this issue very soon (DC v. Heller)

Most lower courts have said it's for state militias, but SCOTUS might go the other way.

A Militia is made up of Civilians......I am a Citizen - Civilian.