Is the emphasis the well regulated militia or the individuals right to keep and bear arms?
405104
Every other amendment in the bill of rights regards individual rights.  Why would this one be any different!
753495
the law was for the right for all men to bear arms this was realy meant in the old engish way  for men to bear arms in confict or the right to form an army  not they way it has been interpretid as the right to carry a weopon anywhere anytime.
175805
For those of you who need a refresher:\n"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,\nthe right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  \n Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution \n\nOverturned: transitive verb to reverse a previous decision, ruling, or law by using legal or legislative procedures\n\nI don't think the second amendment will every be overturned through any sort of constitutional ammendment ratified by the states.  I do think it will continue to be infringed in the near future by all levels of government wishing to keep people from possessing such deadly items (only the government should have those, remember?).\n\nBest Regards,\nArmus
555001
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm\n\nSection 22 means that citizens have the right to own guns but that right is not absoulte (i.e., they can't own any type of gun or do anything they want with it) because the right is limited by the state's "police powers".  Police powers include licensing, inspection, zoning, safety regulations (which cover a lot of territory), quarantines, and working conditions as well as law enforcement. In short, police powers are the basis of a host of state regulatory statutes.
360141
The two are the individual rights thesis and the state's rights thesis. The first says that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms, while the latter argues that it guarantees only a state's right to maintain a militia and bear arms in so doing.
806742
It's open to a great deal of interpretation. It depends on the body regulating the militia. Does it make sense to allow the one being governed by the militia to govern the militia? Not in my opinion. I believe it is another attempt to institute handgun control.
150482
Absolutely.  Every Law Abiding Red blooded citizen of the United states has the right to own any weapon they are able to gain access to.  Yes. I do mean that if a group of americans wants to get together and build a fighter jet and arm it with missles, they have every right to do so.  One of the main reasons for maintaining a malitia is in order to limit the governments power to control the people.
821684
The right to bear arms openly–adopted with reference to state militias–is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. \n\n[edit] Text\nThe Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:\n\n    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.     \n\nThe hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:\n\n    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.     \n\nBoth versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.\n\n\nPlease note that it says, a well regulated militia, not vigilantes. In American society we have rights PROVIDED they do not infringe on the rights of others. I support the second amendment, but urge prudence in unregulated arms floating around my community. We have freedom of speech, but we may not yell FIRE in a crowded theater. There are no absolutes. In a well ordered society people make concessions for the greater good.
900180
1. Constitutional right to bear arms.\n2. Self-defense.\n3. Crime deterent ( Bad guys will not know if you're armed ).
866310
True, The right to bear arms will get restricted pretty fast if you start pointing a gun at someone who isn't attacking you.  Hmm...guess no one told Bush that when he went into Iraq.
1100333
You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.\n\nAs an American I have the RIGHT to bear arms. SO KISS MY WHITE AMERICAN AS$.\n\n\nSorry  for the statement above. NRA just informed me that the lovely US government is trying again with the UN or some stupid f*cking group we are apart of to ban fire arms.
109699
Because the right to bear arms is part of the bill of rights. Lawn darts aren't, and they don't have the NRA or some big lobbying group behind them.
381269
the second amendment.
989801
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.
447666
Ok..First off, there is no constitutional right to bear arms.  Bottom line, it doesn't exist.  I know you've heard politicians talk over and over about it, but the fact is the federal appellate courts are in near unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms, rather it is a guarantee of a militia...not my argument.. that's waht the courts say - that's what the law is.  One other point to drive this home.  The 2nd Amendment...whatever it means...does not apply to the states.  If the amendment does prevent the federal government from taking away individuals right to bear arms (which as I said earlier it doesn't), it does not apply to the states.  The states are free to ban all weapons of any sort (Washington D.C. does this by the way..).  SO bottom line...there is no constitutional right to bear arms.
215874
During the 20th century, the Supreme Court chose to redefine the plain language of the Second Amendment to embody a "collective right."  This is where the idea comes that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the Army to keep and bear arms.  While this argument is clearly made from an historically illiterate basis, it was adopted not only by the Supreme Court, but accepted as settled law by Attorneys General right up until the current administration.\n\nUnder the Ashcroft Justice Department, and now under Gonzalez, the official position of the US Government is that the Second Amendment is not a collective, but an individual right, as it was intended.  Nevertheless, there is still too much precendent from the activist court that says otherwise.  Hence, places like DC, New York, and others have effectively banned guns, regardless of the Constitution (and just how safe are those places?).\n\nWhat it will take now is a lawsuit or several challenging the constitutionality of the gun bans.  These suits would have to make it to the Supreme Court, and we would have to hope that the current composition of the Court would tend to rely more upon the Constitution than stare decisis.
658982
Do you mean military weapons, or weapons in the hands of citizens?\n\nLet's start with the military weapons.  This is our defense.  As the person above me said, "A good offense is a strong defense".  This means that by using a "show of force" (we are strong), we can repel invaders and protect our borders and citizens.\n\nWeapons for the citizens.  This was written into the US Constitution in an effort to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over.  Remember, we had just fought a war with England, and we did not want to allow that to happen again.  So, they wrote the Constitution, and incorporated the "Right to keep and bear arms".  This allows our citizens to bear arms in case of a repeat in government, or we are invaded.\n\nI hope this answers your question.