[labette]

Always resist the temptation to define the Second Amendment in an "either - or" type of argument. {individual vs. collective right}

Think about it.
The Founding Fathers realized the need for the individual AND the collective right to ensure we would be able to check a tyrannical government.

What good is a collective right if the individual can be deprived of arms?

What good is an individual right if a group of such can be labeled "terrorists" or "hate groups" and oppressed accordingly?

[Anti-Bubba182]

"What good is an individual right if a group of such can be labeled "terrorists" or "hate groups" and oppressed accordingly?"

individual right = if a group of such

That is gibberish.

[NinoFan]

Well, when one speaks of individual vs. collective, it's usually meant to mean individual right vs. only collective right.

I think it's best to say that it's an individual right that can also be practiced as a group (like in case of a militia).

[robertpaulsen]

The Founding Fathers considered a federal government a necessary evil. They were fearful of its power. They were careful to draft a constitution which gave it only a few powers and left the rest where they were -- with the states and the people.

But that wasn't enough. They were still concerned. States refused to ratify the document. So they wrote a Bill of Rights to further restrict this entity.

Now, you're saying these same guys are then going to give this creation they feared the obligation of protecting their right to keep and bear arms? Are you crazy?

Your individual right to keep and bear arms is defined and protected by your state. The second amendment protects the formation of state militias from federal interference. That's according to the every single federal court in every single federal court opinion (save two).