All any idiot (including myself) has to do is learn just a tiny bit of American History and they can easily see that any argument against personal ownership of firearms is about the most retarded thing you could ever hear. And that is a fact jack.
My God, it just dawned on me.
Why would an Amendment guaranteeing a Right To Bear Arms, be necessary *under any circumstances OTHER* than to guarantee it to individuals??
Governments in general possess the right to bear arms inherently, as representative of sovereign States. There is no need to codify *that*...
To what, in anyone's imagination, could an Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing to some entity the right to bear arms, possibly refer, OTHER than to to individuals?
My point is that there would be no need to explicitly express or codify such a right, except in such case as where there might be doubt as to who might possess such a right. In fact, if (as Leftist/Socialist/Liberal/"Progressive" scum are wont to argue), the Second Amendment were designed to confer such a right upon the individual States, *WHY* on earth would the Founding Fathers NOT have written the Second Amendment to state "The right of the ****INDIVIDUAL STATES*** to form militias shall not be infringed." ??
If they DIDN'T intend for the Amendment to confer an *individual* right,, WHY on earth would they have therein referred to "The People"?
Somehow, I now feel like a complete idiot for even having bothered to entertain the possibility of debate on this issue.