This is wrong, the Supreem Court just ruled a short time ago the the 2nd Ammendment give the indivual the right to bears arms in defence of the state and self. Make sure that what you write is correct, other wise you do a grear harm to the public, miss information is worse than no information.

It never ceases to amaze how ignorant people are, and that they choose to prove their ignorance publicly.

To begin, NeoSwede G.wrote, “The 5th ammendment doesn't give the person the ‘right to bear arms’, it gives the state a ‘right to bear arms!’” NeoSwede G. did correct him/herself that it is in fact the Second Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment that gives the right to bear arms; however, the term amendment is spelled with one “m,” not two.

Next, the piece NeoSwede G. posted from Wikepedia is not from the Second Amendment. He/she posted a piece from Wikepedia’s “Early commentary in state courts.” In fact, the piece posted is from the Arkansas court case State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark) and in no way shape or form is a true characterization of the Second Amendment. Here is the full piece:

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[67] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[67]
Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[67][68]

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[69] Professor Eugene Volokh revealed, in the California Political Review, that a statement in a concurring opinion in Buzzard was the only support for a collective right view of the right to keep and bear arms in the 19th century.[70]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen...)

In addition, NeoSwede G.wrote that the Second Amendment “doesn't give the person the ‘right to bear arms’, it gives the state a ‘right to bear arms!’” The term “militia” in the Second Amendment does not refer to the state or to the military. The “militia” were literally farmers and civilians who were called upon to grab their muskets to aid in the common defense.

The following information is taken from The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session February 1982 U.S. Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary (GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1982):

"Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a ‘well regulated militia’ of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.”

The article goes on to say that “The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms."

(http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982...)

Finally, NeoSwede G. concludes his argument with random spats of cell phone bans in schools. The Second Amendment states that “[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.” The Second Amendment is in no way related to students using their cell phones to account for two inappropriate incidents that occurred at schools.

In closing, is the following advice: Check your spelling. Note you source wisely. Do not post pieces of things claiming they are something they are not. And stay on topic. You only prove your own ignorance, abating your argument. (And in case you did not know, “abating” means to lessen or make something lessen gradually.)

It never ceases to amaze how ignorant people are, and that they choose to prove their ignorance publicly.

To begin, NeoSwede G.wrote, “The 5th ammendment doesn't give the person the ‘right to bear arms’, it gives the state a ‘right to bear arms!’” NeoSwede G. did correct him/herself that it is in fact the Second Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment that gives the right to bear arms; however, the term amendment is spelled with one “m,” not two.

Next, the piece NeoSwede G. posted from Wikepedia is not from the Second Amendment. He/she posted a piece from Wikepedia’s “Early commentary in state courts.” In fact, the piece posted is from the Arkansas court case State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark) and in no way shape or form is a true characterization of the Second Amendment. Here is the full piece:

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[67] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."[67]
Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[67][68]

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[69] Professor Eugene Volokh revealed, in the California Political Review, that a statement in a concurring opinion in Buzzard was the only support for a collective right view of the right to keep and bear arms in the 19th century.[70]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen...)

In addition, NeoSwede G.wrote that the Second Amendment “doesn't give the person the ‘right to bear arms’, it gives the state a ‘right to bear arms!’” The term “militia” in the Second Amendment does not refer to the state or to the military. The “militia” were literally farmers and civilians who were called upon to grab their muskets to aid in the common defense.

The following information is taken from The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session February 1982 U.S. Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary (GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1982):

"Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a ‘well regulated militia’ of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.”

The article goes on to say that “The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms."

(http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982...)

Finally, NeoSwede G. concludes his argument with random spats of cell phone bans in schools. The Second Amendment states that “[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.” The Second Amendment is in no way related to students using their cell phones to account for two inappropriate incidents that occurred at schools.

In closing, is the following advice: Check your spelling. Note you source wisely. Do not post pieces of things claiming they are something they are not. And stay on topic. You only prove your own ignorance, abating your argument. (And in case you did not know, “abating” means to lessen or make something lessen gradually.)