Are you sure you have the right to say that? After all, freedom of speech is reserved to "The People," not an individual like yourself. Read the First Amendment. It refers to the same "The People" as the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth. Since you are an individual, rather than the people, I think I will report you to the proper authorities. They can come and search your home and arrest your butt, because the Fourth Amendment only applies to "The People;" it is not an individual right, if it was, it would have said Individual persons.

****************
Rumitoid, thank you for your very informative post. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has written extensively on the fact that because we haven't had well regulated m*****as since the civil war, that the "shall not infringe" portion of the second amendment is not operative.

It was a long haul to end the "s***es everywhere" mentality of certain parts of this country. Apparently ending the "guns everywhere" mentality will also take some time. The most important thing we have going for us are the elementary school teachers whose task is to teach children to negotiate conflicts through words, as opposed to physical intimidation. The NRA may not have started out as the nation's number one pro-intimidation group but this is what they evolved into over time.

I could argue your logic with you about "regulating themselves", but I won't. The sentence as written is much closer to saying that the right to bear arms applies only to "well regulated m*****a(s)."

I would like it reworded to clearly state - with no ambiguity - that ALL American citizens have a definite right to keep and bear arms. Say it clearly and expand on it so that individual states can't take the right away. Sorry, all you 10th Amendment advocates.

It's ludicrous that I need to learn and comply with the gun laws in each individual state if I want to carry a weapon with me as I drive cross-country on vacation.

The only entities we have today that could be remotely considered "m*****as" are state National Guard organizations under the control of state governors. They don't need their authority to have weapons be part of the federal constitution, but I don't care if it is. I'd just like to see an end to all the baloney.

The Second Amendment is NOT "very well and concisely written."
-------------------
Wikipedia describes the problem pretty well:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions. The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:

"A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
--------------------

That is one of the most cumbersome and confusing sentences I have ever read!

So...is the Second Amendment about arming m*****as or about arming ordinary civilians?

It has been defined as an individual's right to own firearms without restriction, and I'm ok with that. Still ... the existing wording has caused controversy ever since it was written. Certainly, rewording to clarify its intent would put an end to the controversy. I'm all for it.