[RobbyS]

As I read it, the 2nd Amendment alludes to the state militia. One can infer an individual right, but it would be hard to enforce against a state government.

[Travis McGee]

You read it wrong.

I'm out of state on a clunky borrowed webtv at 115AM, and about to hit the rack, or I would give you an education.

[Squantos]

Damn good thing you can't read.....

[ChefKeith]

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 People ARE the Militia, not the National Guard.

What part don't you understand?

[El Gato]

As I read it, the Amendment alludes to the state militia. One can infer an individual right, but it would be hard to enforce against a state government.

You're dead wrong. It specifically states it's a "right of the people". The militia is just all persons, originally all males, able to bear arms. But never mind that. What about this provision of the Louisiana Constitution?

"The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person." Article 1, Section 11.

Think that the Louisiana Constitution can't be enforced against it's government?

Or if you live in Texas, as about 250,000 Louisianans now do

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Article 1, Section 23.

Or should you find yourself in Nebraska

All persons. . . have certain . . . rights, among these are . . . the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof." (Article 1, Section 1).

[ChefKeith]

The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''

From here

[dbwz]

As I read it, the 2nd Amendment alludes to the state militia. One can infer an individual right, but it would be hard to enforce against a state government.

The militia is everyone. What do you think people did before there was a national guard?

And just because there is now a national guard doesn't mean that the rest of us should all be slacking off here. YOU are ultimately responsible for your own safety and well-being, and asking someone else (police, national guard, whoever) to take a bullet for you smacks of snootery.

[papertyger]

How the hell do you get "State Militia" out of "the people?"

People bear arms to form militias. Militas don't form arms to bear people.

What the hell kind of right would that be?

[Jeff Head]

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's so the people have the wherewithall to form a militia when required, or protect themselves individually when required. Its the people being able to keep and bear arms as individuals, without infringement that makes it possible to have the militia intended by the founders.

[Shooter 2.5]

Simply put, you are wrong. It's an individual Right.

I also don't have the time or the inclination to explain it to you.

[phasma proeliator]

You sir are simply incorrect in your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. Please take some time and do some further research. It is imperative that we retain the individual right to keep and bear arms.