Bravo!
Bravo!
Bravo!

And the citations are awesome reading as well; as are hundreds of other documents that could also have been cited regarding the direct intent of those who wrote the Constitution. Because the Constitution was probably the most debated document in history, there are literally thousands of pages in both advocacy and opposition, all written before it was ratified. They are all fascinating reading. Taken as a whole, they give an exceptionally clear picture of the actual intentions and concerns of the body politic of the time.

To those opposing our god given "unalienable" personal right to weapons:

It is quite noteworthy, that amongst all the myriads debating pro or con; no document written by anyone in that time period can be found, advocating that individual gun rights are limited, except by "Due Process of Law" against a specific individual; meaning after a fair trial and a conviction for a violent crime. Such writings came decades - nay - centuries later.

Moreover, virtually the whole world was subject to kings and emperors at the time - and had been for thousands of years; with only one exception. And in that place, individuals more or less governed themselves and provided their own protections. There were no collectivist countries in the world at all - never had there ever been one either.

And government here, was established for the sole purpose of establishing justice and to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity", as it so plainly says in the Preamble to the Constitution. I know it is no longer required reading in our dummied down public schools and colleges. But It's a great and enlightening read – read it anyway sometime.

Indeed, the Constitution itself uses the words "State" and "the people" numerous times, and in the 9th amendment, it clearly outlines that they are quite different entities. Rights ascribed to the people are definitely NOT being ascribed to the State, nor to any other organized entity.

Besides the direct lack of any evidence to support the notion of 2nd amendment rights (or any rights) being only "collective"; the very concept of "Collective Anything" was not even heard of at the time it was written. It wasn't even in the vocabulary of the age. Such concepts were not invented until much later - in the 19th and 20th centuries - by those wanting to be part of the "Ruling Class" (their words) - ie., socialists. Their idea was to replace the all powerful kings and emperors, with all powerful collectivist States - a concept not exactly conducive to the concept of liberty; and therefore an enemy to human freedom, just the same as were the kings and emperors that came before.

Now what part of the word "Freedom" do you not understand ?

In the context of this discussion, it means that I will decide for myself just how much risk of being attacked is tolerable to me - and also just what I will do to mitigate that risk. In my own case, since I am disabled and cannot fight a mugger, let alone a bear or cougar; and would rather not own a weapon; I simply do not go where I consider the risk to be too high - except in the near presence of someone who does choose to carry such a weapon - such as a policeman.

But the reality is that in too many cases, the police are not able to protect anyone. They will tell you that themselves! They will tell you that the first line of defense is always with the individuals themselves. So to take away anyone's individual right to carry a personal weapon (or to use it when needed); is a serious breach of the most fundamental human right of all - the right to life itself!

Either you respect all human rights - or you don't really respect any human rights! They are not seperable - each supports and buttresses the others. None can be secure without all the others intact.