[Cooking101]

"The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."

Of course the 2nd Amendment is about individual citizens. Why would they have needed to amend the Constitution to allow our military to bear arms?

[robertpaulsen]

Prior to this ruling, every lower federal circuit court in every lower federal circuit court case (save one) has ruled a "collective" right -- ie., an individual RKBA as part of a state Militia. The second amendment was to protect the ability of the states to form state Militias from federal interference.

Your individual RKBA is protected by your state constitution. Which is why gun laws (eg., concealed carry) vary from state to state.

Think about it. If the second amendment protected that right, the laws would have to be the same in each state, would they not?

[El Gato]

Why would they have needed to amend the Constitution to allow our military to bear arms?

The militia is not the military, any more than the posse is the sheriff or police. Both are US, that is "the people".