[William Tell]

Honcho said: 'It's always been my assertion that the Second Amendment has been misread by both sides of the arguement. To me the Second Amendment says this : Because the State must have an Army to be secure, then the State can not interfere with the people's rights to own a gun."

Not quite. The word "militia" does not mean army. It means the people acting in their role as protectors of their security. Our Founders distincly refer to "standing armies" as being a threat which will be countered by having an armed populace which will always outnumber them.

When Paul Revere rode to warn Lexington and Concord, he did not shout "The British are coming!". He did not shout "The Militia are coming!". He shouted "The Regulars are coming", referring to the "Regular Army" as opposed to the militia made up of every armed farmer and tradesman.

Our Founders understood exactly what was necessary to insure that the people would be protected from a tyrannical government and it did not consist of insuring them a place in the army which was commanded by that government.

[Greeklawyer]

look at the logical conclusion of an armed citizenry.
When huricane andrew devistated miami, there were pictures
of the citizens standing guard armed and protecting their
property and loved ones.
The riots in california had the store owners using guns to push away
looters.

I believe the militia work has been truly bastardized.
The word has the equivalance of citizens bucket brigate.

Just from observation, those who want individual rights eliminated
will go after the guns and will say whatever
to get to their goal.

Look at the guy who wrote that alleged historical book about
gun ownership not being prevalent.
He lied and fabricated according to his piers but no one is
condeming because they agree with his goal.

Common sense dictates the founders were adressing the rights
of the individual.

Take the third ammendment, not to quarter soldiers, is this a conlective right? no,

Is the first amendment a colective right for groupthink? no

The fourth and fifth regarding government acts? no

The constitution was founded by individuals comming together.

The United States did not form itself out of a vacume.
It was not a collective act, it was a collection of acts.

[teeman8r]

the reference to a free State, is not necessarily the geographical but can be interpreted as the metaphysical state of freedom that individuals possess when they are armed. "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," read this way, " A well armed and trained citizenry, able to fight for their freedom and that of their neighbors, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."