http://www.rsrwholesale.com/cgi/rsr4/loadpage.cgi?17264+htmls/mike4.htm

It’s MY Right and YOURS Too!
Michael R. Saporito
Recently, guest editorials and op-ed pieces have resurrected the argument that the Second Amendment applies only to the authority of the states to maintain a National Guard. Such arguments are without merit and are clearly wrong.
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, …keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace…” If the Second Amendment was intended to authorize the states to maintain a National Guard, it would be in direct conflict with Article I, Section 10. Moreover, if the Second Amendment was intended to repeal Article I, Section 10, it would contain specific language to that effect. It does not. Clearly, the Second Amendment is directed at individuals, not states.

In addition, the colonists’ fear of standing armies in peacetime is strong evidence that the framers of the Second Amendment intended to base their defense on an army made up of citizens who volunteered for service, provided their own weapons and disbanded when the conflict ended. The entire army that participated in the Revolutionary War was made up of just such people. They were the militia.

To ensure that each person could continue to fulfill their obligation to defend the “free state,” the framers both stated and protected the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as part of the newly written Constitution. The colonists knew that without such arms, the people could not and would not join together to fight against either government tyranny or foreign aggression.

Today, anti gun groups argue that a “well regulated” militia is one that is subject to strict government control – and lots of it. Some have even argued that “well regulated” is a basis for gun control. That one is really a stretch! Again, the argument is invalid. A “…well-regulated militia… ” refers to organization, not control. A well-organized militia is of infinitely more value to the “…security of a free state…” than a militia subject to controls that eliminate its flexibility, effectiveness and purpose. Clearly, the intent was that, once formed, the militia was under the logistical and lawful control of the government. Until that time, however, it was intended that the people continue to be free citizens of the United States, each entitled to exercise all rights under the Constitution, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms…

It is curious – or maybe not so curious – that groups that are trying to disarm the people make the argument that the right recognized in the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. The United States Supreme Court, in the 1990 case of United States vs. Verdugo- Urquidez said “The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained…by the `people.’ The Second Amendment protects `the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to `the people’.” The Court also pointed out that members of the House of Representatives are elected by “the people of the several states.” Clearly, the Court considered the word “people” to have exactly the same meaning throughout the Constitution. Just as clearly, every right held by “the people” is an individual right. To believe otherwise is to deny every individual the right to vote, be free from illegal searches and arrests or keep and bear arms.

The only place where the word “people” has a collective meaning is in the former and current Communist countries where there were and are no individual rights or freedoms. The “People’s Republic of China” comes to mind, as does the former Soviet Union. Perhaps those who assert the argument that the right to keep and bear arms is only a collective right are giving us a clue about their social and political thinking and revealing their ultimate goal for a disarmed America.

The first ten amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, were added to our Constitution by demand of the people – the same people who had just thirteen years earlier fought a war to sever their ties with the English Monarchy. They knew they needed to protect the nation from both domestic tyranny and foreign aggression and they knew that just enumerating their rights on paper was not enough to ensure their continuity. The Second Amendment was intended to protect that continuity. If we have no individual rights under the Second Amendment, how could we protect our rights under the other nine amendments? If the federal government were to disband all of our military today, who would protect us from domestic oppression or foreign aggression? The answer was clear when the Second Amendment was proposed and it is clear now – the armed citizen. It has been said by many people, and it is still true today: the Second Amendment is not about guns. It is about individual freedom and the “security of a free State”. Don’t be willing to give it up so easily.