Individual Right, or Collective Right?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-brmail943xfeb23,0,415434.story?coll=sfla-news-letters
FYI, the definition of militia:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=militia

Now read the Second Amendment: 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)

The word militia is not used to refer to the military.  The founders viewed militias as being composed of the people.  Neither the National Guard, the Army, nor the police qualify as 'militias.'  The Second Amendment applies to private citizens, not to government-controlled fighting forces.  I don't see a single definition present for 'militia' that would lead one to the conclusion that the word refers to a governmental fighting force.  I see many indications that it quite simply refers to ordinary citizens.  To summarize? The Second Amendment is an individual right.  It is NOT, as the ACLU claims (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html), a right that applies to the police or military.

(http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/ACLU.htm)
This website discusses the ACLU and their 2nd Amendment policies in greater detail.

The ACLU is dead wrong on this issue, and they need to be pressured into supporting ALL of the Bill of Rights - NOT just the civil liberties they are most comfortable with.

You can view the ACLU's website here:  (http://www.aclu.org/).  Using the links provided here:  (http://www.aclu.org/contact/index.html), you can contact the ACLU and voice your support for a change in their policy on this matter.

>>1
I thought this debate was long over.  The 2A is an individual right, period.  This is just dumbshittery pure and simple.  Also, the ACLU is not neutral on the gun issue, as they claim.  If they were neutral, they would refuse to get involved in the issue at all.  They are against the 2nd Amendment.  By supporting or endorsing the notion that the 2A is not an individual right (the argument previously extolled by the gun grabbers), they take a stand - against the Second Amendment.  This is simply NOT a neutral stand.

It is an individual and a collective right. You can't have a militia without either. If it isn't a collective right the militia cannot be practical against an invading force. If it isn't an individual right, then someone must decide who joins up and who doesn't meaning it becomes another wing of the military.

>>3
"You can't have a militia without either."

You can have a militia without a collective right to keep and bear arms.  All that would be is a group of people each individually asserting their -individual- right to keep and bear arms, and then deciding to be a member of a given militia.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Oct-30-Thu-1997/opinion/6312337.html