About the second amendment

this is more of a response to my friend Rob Johnson's post about his thoughts regarding rules that could be passed to curb gun related violence.  If the rules will or will not have any effect is up for debate.

I do however have some issues with the way the debate is framed.  The first quote:

First I would like to point out that the second amendment was not intended to apply to an individual person.

Such a broad and sweeping statement begs for proof before the framing can be taken seriously.  As it is, the Second Amendment, both in word and in context, enumerates an individual right.

  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.

Two things about this:

The right to bear arms is taken for granted in the Amendment.  The first clause of the amendment simply states that the state is as dependent on this right as the individual.

The Bill of Rights contextually enumerates the rights of "citizens."  The First enumerates the so-called "First Freedoms".  The rest enumerate specific rights that corroborate with abuses suffered during colonial days at the hands of the British.  As such there is no reason to assume that the Second Amendment is different than any other right enumerated.

 Secondly, there is this:

The United States Supreme Court has decided that this amendment, however, does apply to an individual person just like someone now has a “right to privacy.”

Where the "right to privacy" is "inferred" (through very dubious means) the Second Amendment states plainly the right to bear arms of the citizen.  What Mr. Johnson "infers" actually is that the Amendment applies only to the state.  Thus this is a false equivalency.

I don't own a gun nor intend to in the near future.  But I do have an issue with undefended premises.  Especially when the entire framework hinges on a dubious and easily challenged premise.