This is a subject that has bothered me for years. It reminds me of the old maxim about how you should never argue with an idiot because others will have a hard time telling which is which. I really hate it when an anti-gunner throws out the notion that the 2nd Amendment references the "militia" therefore it only applies to a government entity. The reason I hate that, is because so often the pro-gunner will counter with the argument that it means we are all a part of the "militia". Bunk! This is why it is important to learn the English language as a tool for communicating through writing as well as speech. The 2nd clearly states that "A well regulated militia (comma) being necessary for the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first thing to recognize is that this is an amendment to an existing document. The existing document, the Constitution, had already established the militia and the government's right to arm it. That was a done deal. Over. Established and ready to be ratified. But, the states wanted a little more clarification on what rights would go untouched by the Federalists once the ratification took place. So the wording of the 2nd Amendment is an acknowledgment of those concerns. Some were against the government sponsoring a standing army period. The wording is basically expressing the idea of, okay here's the deal---We need an armed force (militia), but to alleviate your concerns, YOUR right to be armed won't be touched. To accept the opposition's argument that the 2nd refers to the government's militia being armed by saying, "Oh but we are all a part of that" is to miss the whole idea and gives their argument standing. I've yet to hear it, but I'm surprised no anti-gunner has made the case that only able-bodied men aged 17 to 45 should be allowed to own weapons since that was the criteria for the "militia" at the time of ratification.