The US Senate website on the Constitution conveys uncertainty about whether the 2nd amendment was meant to protect the collective right to maintain a militia or the individual right to own a gun:

Zitat

---

WASHINGTON TIMES – The Senate’s official website page on the Constitution says the Second Amendment right to bear arms could be a collective right, not an individual freedom.

The website explains the Second Amendment this way: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”

The Bill of Rights, however, was the Founding Father’s way of guaranteeing each and every individual their “unalienable rights,” as “endowed” by God. On top of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled — at least twice in the past five years — that the Second Amendment is an individual right, Breitbart reported.

---

I did some checking. This was added to the Senate website sometime in 2003 with the following language:

Zitat

---

Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia is strongly debated.

---

In 2009 it was changed to what it is now:

Zitat

---

Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.

---

Notice the difference? One suggests it is strongly debated and the newer version suggests it has long been debated. Not a huge difference in the two as I would take issue with both of them. After all the text is pretty clear:

Zitat

---

Amendment II (1791)

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.

---

Or put another way, in order to ensure a FREE state remains FREE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

http://therightscoop.com/wtf-us-senate-w...not-individual/

Found this interesting quote on the subject:

James Madison, "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared," 46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29, 1788:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."