"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... [I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Benjamin Franklin

(speaking of the Bill of Rights) "They are the building blocks of the Republic, and the Second Amendment is the mortar which shall hold them together."
-- George Washington

"We established however some, although not all its important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Cartwright, 1824)

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against a tyranny...which historically had proved to be always possible."
-- Senator Hubert Humphry

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- President John F. Kennedy

"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

James Madison

The Founding Fathers placed the Second Amendment in the Constitution for a reason, and it had nothing to do with putting venison on the dinner table, or forming a "National Guard," but rather to make sure "the People", ALL of the people, had the means to come to the national defense, defend themselves individually, or to resist a tyrannical government, should one arise.

In the Revolutionary War, which had just passed, the colonists had used their own private firearms to resist and overcome the tyranny of Great Britain. They, therefore, desired to make sure that if a tyrannical government rose to power here again, the people would be able to resist. The statements and writings of such men as Patrick Henry, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton and Richard Henry Lee make this abundantly clear.

Additionally, they were careful to use the word "arms," not muskets or flintlocks. It was the pinnicle of the "Age of Enlightenment," and the Founding Fathers were aware that technology would continue to change the world. It was important to them that the American citizen be armed with whatever was current, at any given moment, so that they would at least be on an equal footing with governmental capability.

Let's take a look at the Second Amendment, take it apart, and inspect it's various phrases separately.

"A well-regulated militia..." Getting people to agree to an exact definition for the word "militia" has posed a problem for many years. How can we best define it? (At the bottom of this page you will find the current, official U.S. Government definition of the Militia.) When analyzing historical writings you must look at them in the same light in which they were written. (The Militia Act of 1792) In other words, what did the authors mean when they wrote them? To look at them in any other way is begging for misinterpretation. Take the word "regulated" for instance, today one might read this and conclude that our Founding Fathers meant the militia must be controlled. If so, it was in the context that a military force should be under the control of a civilian authority. However, when used in this context back in 1787, the word also meant organized and well practiced.

When Hillary Clinton was a young lawyer working to get Richard Nixon impeached, she made the following, stunningly insightful, comment on page 12 of a report on her findings."..that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors," not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them." I'm sure she feels the same way today about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. (Hmmm...well, don't bet your life on it!).

How lucky we are that we have preserved for us, the thoughts, ideas and philosophies of our founding fathers, in their own handwriting, so that there can be no chance of misinterpretation concerning their views on gun ownership, the militia and tampering with the Constitution. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the word "militia" as it is used in the second amendment.

James Madison, who authored the Constitution, borrowing from George Mason, defines the militia as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." Again, George Mason, "I ask sir what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." Richard Henry Lee said, "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the whole people themselves." So the militia is not the Army or simply the National Guard, which is part of the militia, it is all the people, it is you and me. As noted earlier, the word "regulated," as used here, does not mean controlled, but well ordered and practiced.

In the following commentary the word "State" equals "Nation" as in the President is "Head of State," or in "European States," which refers to nations.

"....being necessary to the security of a free State," This doesn't mean secure from external forces only, such as invasion by a foreign power, but from internal enemies as well. Our founding fathers were very aware of this possibility as the oath of office to the United States shows. Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate and most particularly those who occupy the White House should perhaps reflect on the meaning of the oath they took. The oath of office to the United States reads in part as follows: "I solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." That reads, "foreign and domestic." If a politician actively seeks to diminish, infringe, abrogate, or abolish, any portion of the Constitution, or its Bill of Rights, that person must be considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution. Even if you haven't taken the oath, you ought to take that proposition very seriously. Abraham Lincoln took it seriously, and this is what he had this to say about it; "Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Additionally, the wording of this phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free state," can lead to only one conclusion. "Necessary" means, "cannot do without," or simply put, a FREE state cannot exist without a militia. Other organizations such as the police or the army can provide for the security of a state, but only a state that has a militia can remain free. A police state can provide security, and if benevolent, the illusion of freedom, but if you lack the means to defend yourself, or overthrow the state if it becomes oppressive you are in a condition of slavery, not freedom.

..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." "The right of the people," that seems pretty straight forward to me. It would take a simpleton to misinterpret that, but it seems the world is full of simpletons. Perhaps we need once again to turn to those who framed and signed these documents to determine the exact meaning of this phrase.

People vs Person, or Persons: All of these terms are used in the Constitution, because they mean different things. The use of "The People" is used to designate "Citizens" and did not include slaves, indigenous savages, or women. The term "Person," or "Persons" included these groups.

Thomas Jefferson, the master architect of the Declaration of Independence and major collaborator on the Constitution said; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Jefferson also said; "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Alexander Hamilton meant it when he said; "The Constitution shall never be construed.... to prevent the people of the United States... from keeping their own arms." and "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Again we hear from Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." George Washington, the "Father of our Country," the man who led our citizen army against the might of the British Empire and probably knew better than anyone else the power of the "militia" rifle said, "When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." In addition, the term, "keep and bear arms," points to this right as an individual right. Only individuals bear arms, states do not.

..."shall not be infringed." What part of NO is it, that citizen disarmament advocates do not understand? The words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" absolutely forbids the Federal Government from violating or transgressing against our Second Amendment rights in any way, shape, or form.

Remember, when debating the individual clauses, it is important to remember that the document must be taken as a whole, not just a sum of the parts. In its entirety, it is clear, the Constitution calls for limited government designed to protect the people's rights to life, liberty and property. Any interpretation, on any individual point, which deviates from that overall theme is in error.

"Title 10-Armed Forces, U.S. Code, page 95, Chapter 13, The Militia, Sec. 311:

Sec. 311, (a) The Militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States."

"Sec. 311 (b) the class of militia are:

(1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

NOTE: Title 32, sec. 313 has modified part (a) to include females. Part (a) now ends with the wording: "and female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

(Number 2, the Unorganized Militia, All able bodied men, 17 to 45 years of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the Reserve Militia, also known as the Unorganized Militia. Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the Unorganized Militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the Unorganized Militia pool (10 USC 311).

That means everyone else including you and me are members of the Unoganized Militia.

Can anyone give you an ironclad guarantee that our government will be benevolent for all time? IF NOT.... DON'T GIVE UP YOUR FIREARMS!

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
- Norton v Shelby County, U.S. Supreme Court,[118 US 425,(1886).]

"The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
- Boyd v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court,[116 U.S. 616,(1886).]

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words,[Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded."
- Mr. Justice Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court,[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).]

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court, [319 U.S. 105 (1943).]

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
- Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court,[384 U.S. 436 (1966).]

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”
- Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]