A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state, THE RIGHT OF THE "PEOPLE" to bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is simplistic in nature and it has nothing to do with hunting, target practicing, nor in actuality, weapons. The two most important words that are key to this amendment are the PEOPLE and "FREE"dom. NO MILITIA can exist without PEOPLE....non representative people to any government entity with the exception of the STATE, a term ALWAYS presented in the constitution and following amendments as being "synonymic" with the PEOPLE, FREE PEOPLE. Thus, in reality what this amendment is declaring is the fact as presented throughout the entirety of our common Constitution and following amendments......THE PEOPLE HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO BE "FREE" AND TO PROTECT THEMSELVES WHEN THE NEED ARISES, AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS ACTION OF BEING FREE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO "MAINTAIN" ARMS, FOR no Militia can exist without PEOPLE nor ARMS. This right will continue to exist as long as there is a STATE/Peoples that need protecting. But this right to maintain arms does not preclude nor make invalid the right of any legal institute of authority to place limits and regulations upon those arms....as evidenced by the many laws on the books doing as much, and found time and time again not to be "unconstitutional" in the fact of regulating such. We have a constitutionally mandated right to keep and bear arms, and the powers that be via the powers granted them by the mandate of legally represented law makers of the PEOPLE have the same right to limit those arms to be "reasonable" in the need to protect that FREEDOM that is guaranteed by the right of "SELF PROTECTION" when the referenced power of the formal government fails to do as much. As has always been demonstrated, A RIGHT, any right is always an "individual" right. As groups can not possess rights...but individuals within said group can possess rights..thus we are not dealing with the fact of any organized Militia having any rights, but, we are dealing with the fact of the "individuals" that make up that group and what right they do in fact possess.

There are many and various cases where this need could and does arise.....in the event of a crime taking place with no immediate help coming from the FORMAL GOVERNMENT, as always evidenced, when one is self defending his life, one is always presented to be LEGALLY within his/her rights as established by precedence, and another case might be the temporary failing of Government during a natural disaster.....does Katrina ring a bell? And of course should the need arise...the right to self defend ourselves in a time of WAR. Simple, uncomplicated and most importantly, GUARANTEED in a way that no "semantical" language can try to twist such wording. As indeed demonstrated, there is no misrepresenting the fact that the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE, AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE AND TO KEEP THAT ABILITY REQUIRES THE RIGHT TO bear arms. As common sense, a quality that our founders were not found lacking therein, declares that any government can not protect all the people all the time. Again as evidenced on 9/11. BD