The Second Amendment

First, I would like lay-out the reasons for the Second Amendment. And second, in the tidbit(s) that follow, I will offer what God thinks about gun rights.
  The Second Amendment declares: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
 
  There are 2 interpretations of this amendment:
a.the Second Amendment is an individual right
b.the Second Amendment is a collective, protecting the right of a state militia, but not individuals to possess arms
 
In this first tidbit, I argue the logic for the right of individuals to own guns. Following are six reasons extracted from ‘laws of nature’ (Rom1:20) written in the creation that inspired the Founding Fathers to believe in individual gun rights.
 
1.Kings. The Framers understood rights to apply to individuals given by God, because they came from Europe where kings determined rights. In other words, at the time the Bill of Rights were being considered, kings ruled all over the world, and it was the king who determined the rights of their subjects.
 
2.Individual Rights. The Bill of Rights was created to secure (Preamble) individual rights. Because the Second Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights are individual Rights, the second Amendment’s context is irrefutable evidence that it was designed to apply to individuals. In other words, why would the Framers place the Second Amendment in the context of the Bill of Rights—which was designed to secure individual rights?
 
3.Freedom of Press. Allow me to return to the First Amendment for a moment where the Bill of Rights includes the ‘Freedom of Press’. Does the ‘Freedom of Press’ apply only to the government? In other words, if the right to a ‘Freedom of the Press’ only gives the government a right to report, then commentators on TitTok, Youtube, Facebook, and podcasts; not to mention NBC, CBS, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc., are all violating the law! Why? Because none of these people or news organizations are government approved or sponsored! On the contrary, just as the ‘Freedom of the Press’ is an individual right, so also gun ownership is an individual.
 
4.People, Keep, Bear, Militia.
4.i.The phrase “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, means just what it says, “people” have a right “keep and bear” arms. The word “people” is comprised of individuals, which means those individuals who make up the word “people” each have a right to “bear arms”, i.e. own guns. The reason each person has a right is because groups of people are comprised of individual people!
4.ii.Second, are we to believe that it is possible to reject the clear definition of the word “keep” to mean its direct opposite: that the “people” cannot “keep” their arms—which is what is necessary in order to make the second amendment refer only to the militia as a group of people? If in fact you decide to believe that the definitions of “people” and “keep” do change when in the context of the word “militia”, please explain how the words “people” and “keep” are redefined to support this position?
4.iii.Fourth, while you are redefining the words “keep” and “people”, please include the word “bear” too. However, just remember the Dictionary.com definition of the following two words are as follows:
a.“keep”=retain possession
b.“bear”=reveal/unveil at any moment necessary. Or, to carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place
 
4.iv.In conclusion, what kind of tortured logic would allow the Framers to argue that the words “keep and bear” arms:
a.only applies to a  government sponsored “militia” when the militia is made up of “the people” who are each ‘citizens’ of the nation?
b.applies only when the militia is fighting a government-approved battle, which means when the government battle concludes the militia must return their arms!
  
5.Army, Navy,Militia,James Madison
5.i.If one believes the word “militia” applies only to a government-trained and supplied military, why did the Framers not use the word “army”(navy, Marines, etc), which is the word most often used to identify a government-run military?
5.ii.If it is true that the militia is a government military force, and if it is true that only the militia can “keep and bear” arms, then would not every man simply join the “militia” in order to “keep and bear” their arms after they fought in a battle?
5.iii.James Madison. In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison confirms that the Framers believed there to be a difference between an ‘army’ and a ‘militia’: “This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than 25 or 30,000 men. To them would be opposed a militia amounting to near a half-million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia of such circumstance could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against British arms will be most inclined to deny the impossibility of it.”
  Notice that James Madison perfectly established the point that the militia were non-government individuals because in his statement he contrasts them (militia) against the army, when using the phrase: “an army of more than 25 or 30,000 men”.
   In addition, he not only used the word “militia”, but he also used the word “citizens” to define those in the militia who had the following rights: “a militia amounting to near a half-million of citizens with arms in their hands”. The use of the word “citizen” is still more evidence that  Madison believed that as the second amendment applied to the militia…it applied to individuals!!!!
    While it may not be completely clear—to us contemporaries---why or how the word “militia” was used in the Second Amendment, one thing we can be absolutely certain of, and that is the Framers did not mean for the word ‘militia’ to exclude individuals from owning arms. And I repeat, remember, when the second amendment was debated and passed(1789), the U.S. had just won the war with Britain---therefore the Framers understood the definition of an army!
 
6.Why then did the Framers advocate for individuals to possess guns? Four reasons:
6.i.To hunt for food
6.ii.Home Self-defense. (Which I will cover in another tidbit)
6.iii.Foreign invasion. This should be an obvious reason because the War for Independence (Revolutionary War) was fought by American farmers, i.e.ordinary people--not well-trained or experienced soldiers.
6.iv.Government tyranny.  The Framers wanted individuals to be armed in case the government began attacking its own people.
   The Framers believed it was possible for the government to attack their people. James Madison also wrote in Federalist Paper 46: “Let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country be formed, and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government, still it would not be going too far to say that the state government with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger.” And…what did James Madison mean by “repel” the danger? I repeat, what danger? The military danger the federal government poses to its citizens!
 
1.webstersdictionary1828.com