DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 28, 2010, 12:41:19 PM
-
BARELY
Gun rights extended by Supreme Court
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
Long live the Constitution & Justices who strictly adhere to it, in their rulings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134_pf.html)
-
nothing is put to bed with liberals, they will attack from another angle. the ends justify the means.
-
SCOTUS was their last recourse. Anything else legislated will now hit this same wall
-
nothing is put to bed with liberals, they will attack from another angle. the ends justify the means.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html)
-
Anything else legislated will now hit this same wall
-
Second Amendment Roundly Applies To States
Monday, June 28, 2010
Jillian Bandes
The Supreme Court?s McDonald v. Chicago decision today ruled that local government cannot place overly-burdensome restrictions on their citizens ability to own firearms. It was a landmark ruling for the Second Amendment, but also for the principle of the Constitution superseding state laws. Whether the Constitution has more authority than state laws is an issue that is far from settled; as the Wall Street Journal?s Nathan Koppel explains, federal laws have only been sporadically applied to states.
Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.
The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions?such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments?apply only to the federal government and don't necessarily bind states.
The Heritage Foundation, on the other hand, thinks that the Second Amendment is so clear and sweeping that it's hard to imagine how it couldn't apply to states:
It is hard to believe that anyone could rationally argue that the Second Amendment does not protect a fundamental right. Yet liberals on the Court, including Justice Stevens whose last day is today, could not even bring themselves to recognize this fundamental right because they don?t like the result. They would never do this with other amendments in the Bill of Rights that lead to results they agree with.
A win for the Constitution & Bill of Rights........by a 5-4 vote :-\ (http://townhall.com/blog/g/b961fcbe-7363-47f0-a4bf-4b59ccb7d74e?comments=true&commentsSortDirection=Descending)
-
Gun control means holding it with both hands.
Glad the Supreme Court upheld the constitution.
-
hear hear 8)
-
hear hear 8)
eye eye
-
d'oh d'oh
-
Next, the right of the people to form well ordered militias.
-
(http://www.cagle.com/working/100629/lester.jpg)
-
Anything else legislated will now hit this same wall
glad to see the ruling...but don't bet on that "wall" lasting forever
when they get enough illegals in here that keeps the Supreme Court permanently liberal.
you know thats the plan.....demographics
they couldn't win the game...so they had to use lawbreakers to help them attain their goal
glad i'll be winding down by then and have lived when i did
-
Anything else legislated will now hit this same wall
glad to see the ruling...but don't bet on that "wall" lasting forever
when they get enough illegals in here that keeps the Supreme Court permanently liberal.
you know thats the plan.....demographics
they couldn't win the game...so they had to use lawbreakers to help them attain their goal
glad i'll be winding down by then and have lived when i did
Heh. What's that quote again? Something like "criminals love gun control. Makes their job easier."
-
Is there a limit on the tax applied to ammunition?
I remember this being put forward as a "solution " years ago.
Tax ammo very highly.
-
Anything else legislated will now hit this same wall
glad to see the ruling...but don't bet on that "wall" lasting forever
when they get enough illegals in here that keeps the Supreme Court permanently liberal.
you know thats the plan.....demographics
they couldn't win the game...so they had to use lawbreakers to help them attain their goal
glad i'll be winding down by then and have lived when i did
Heh. What's that quote again? Something like "criminals love gun control. Makes their job easier."
yeah I think that works for liberal career politicians too. criminals too.
-
Heh. What's that quote again? Something like "criminals love gun control. Makes their job easier."
Thus my toon ;)
-
I remember this being put forward as a "solution " years ago.
Tax ammo very highly.
=================================
This would just make practicing to be a good shot more difficult. You'd have the same number of homicidal maniacs, just they would be bad shots, like the bad guys in the movies, who can't hit anyone even with a machine gun.
We can hope that murderous gun nuts will simply kill one another more often. The non-murderous ones are a lesser problem, after all.
-
Well that's the thing about me. I'm a "gun nut" in that I wholly support the right to carry firearms. I don't own a gun myself though. Shot my friends .22 pistol and shotgun (when I learned the most important rule about fire-arms safety... wear hearing protection), and it was fun in a brutal, primal, "i'm a man" kinda way.
That being said, if I could afford a firearm, I would get licensed and attend training BEFORE I purchased my weapon, and I doubt I would carry it with me in public, just because even with it being legal, people give you funny looks when you carry a weapon. It would be used for home protection, nothing more.
-
I would describe you as a wannabe gun nut, which is a better thing to be for all concerned, most of the time.
I once lived in a town so small in Washington State that the main recreation was to go to the town dump and shoot rats.
It was mildly amusing. They had a lot of plump rats there, and they would squeak pitifully when hit most of the time.
They dammed up the Cowlitz River, and I think the rats must have been drowned.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0629cd20100628081953.jpg)
-
This is from an old MAD Magazine. Lighter Side of Guns.
A man has a wall full of firearms of all sizes and shapes. His visitor points out a solitary pistol in the center and says: "Why do you need all of these? Surely that one gun would suffice."
"You're right," the man says. "The others are there to make sure nobody tries to take that one gun away."
-
8)
-
Even a simple guy like me can figure out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's contained in the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week vote to infringe on the right to bear arms?
The court ruled 5 to 4 that 76-year-old Otis McDonald, an African-American Democrat who lives in Chicago, can own a handgun. McDonald, a retired working-class guy, sued the city for taking away his right to protect himself. McDonald was blunt: He said his neighborhood is full of thugs who threaten his well-being and the city cannot control the situation. So he has to protect himself from harm.
But Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg basically told McDonald to take a hike. They opined that guns cause a lot of damage to society; therefore, if a city wants to ban them, it can. But that is a policy belief, is it not? Where in the Constitution does it say that if guns become a menace to society they can be banned? Where does it say that?
The Founding Fathers well understood the need for individual protection. Under King George, British soldiers routinely threw Colonial families out of their homes using a bogus law called the "Quartering Act." Also, the colonists had little protection from harm because there was no federal authority and state governments were in their infancy. The founders also recognized that armed rebellion was a possibility even after we threw the British out. So they allowed the new American citizens the right to "bear arms" as protection and, indeed, wanted the folks to form "militias" in case of emergency.
A smart fifth-grader understands all that, but apparently four Supreme Court justices do not.
If these liberal jurists really cared about gun control, they would urge Congress to pass a law making all gun crimes federal offenses with mandatory prison sentences of 10 years. That would mean that any thug who carried a gun illegally or used one to commit a crime would be facing a 10-year stretch on top of whatever else he or she had done. You want bad guys with guns off the streets? That's the way to do it.
My opinion on gun control changed drastically when I saw the chaos in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Armed bands of looters in boats cruised the city taking pretty much anything they wanted because the local police presence had collapsed. If you had remained in town in order to protect your property, you would have been at the mercy of these looters unless you had the firepower to ward them off. That is why all Americans have the right to bear arms.
It is depressing to think that the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of this world do not care a whit about the welfare of Otis McDonald and other Americans who find themselves at risk. For Ginsburg, it is all about her liberal philosophy -- not what benefits the American people.
The Supreme Court is just one justice away from giving Ginsburg and her leftist crew the power to completely usurp the Constitution. Be very afraid.
At least Obama's damage will be confined to just 1 liberal justice for another (http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/07/03/shooting_down_the_constitution/page/full)
-
Even a simple guy like me can figure out these words from the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
=========================================
I would guess that they are not as simple as you are and read the part about how the reason for this was "a well-organized militia". What IS your rank in the militia, by the way?
Everyone knows that owning a rifle was a necessity for the majority of the people in the 1790's: they lived in pretty wild country, and depended on game for food and firearms for defense against thieves and Indians, because there were no police.
-
Read up a little better, Xo. Their reference to a "militia" was largely any and everyone NOT of the Government run military, and they being of the unorganized component. The Constitution has been crystal clear on this, and the Bill of Rights has been crystal clear in that they are individual rights protecting us from an oppressive Government.
It's a shame how many justices on the Supreme court currently don't understand that
-
What IS your rank in the militia, by the way?
The militia - as defined in 10 USC 311 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html) - has no ranks for the unorganized component.
And the 2nd Amendment says nothing about an "organized militia".
-
It says the following:
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.
Is regulated the same as organized?
In any event, the Second Amendment indicates that the necessity of a "well regulated militia" is the purpose, or at least a major purpose, of the people's right to bear arms.
What was quoted entirely eliminates the mention of a militia.
One can only assume that to be well regulated, said militia needs to have someone in charge of regulating it well. Do you know of any organization of human beings that self-regulates itself well without someone to do the regulating?
-
If BT gets a chance, perhaps he can point you to a link, where I wrote a nice summation for PiC, regarding this issue, which will futher attempt to educate you and the 4 other current Supreme Court Justices, as it relates to the Bill of Rights, with the emphasis both the individual nature of those rights and the rationale for those rights against that of a REGULATED & oppressive government. Believe it or not, there is both an organized and unorganized component to the militia. We, the heathen people of the U.S., actually make up the unorganized version of it
The only rational thing 1 can assume from the Bill of Rights, is the emphasis they place on restraining the Government from what it would want to impose on the individual
-
In any event, the Second Amendment indicates that the necessity of a "well regulated militia" is the purpose, or at least a major purpose, of the people's right to bear arms.
And yet, the founding fathers were so stupid that they couldn't figure out the since they meant only militia members should be allowed firearms, that writing "the right of the militia" instead of "the right of the people" would have sufficed.
Or can you think of anyplace else in the Constitution that "the people" means some group smaller than "everyone"?
Also, at the time "well regulated" was a phrase used to described something that was accurate or worked well. Like a "well regulated metronome."
-
also, at the time "well regulated" was a phrase used to described something that was accurate or worked well. Like a "well regulated metronome."
========================
-
also, at the time "well regulated" was a phrase used to described something that was accurate or worked well. Like a "well regulated metronome."
========================================
It sounds like you are subjecting this to your interpretation.
If a metronome is well-regulated, someone built it as such, or maintains its regularity, or both.
How is a militia going to be "well-regulated" if no one is in charge, and no regulations are provided?
And again, firearms were a necessity to most of the people at the time the Constitution was written.
Most Americans do not need to hunt game to survive, nor are wild Indians about.
I really do not care if anyone owns a gun so long as they do not use it, especially on me.
-
You mean, like someone else built the firearm, but you, the individual get to "regulate it". You're starting to get it
-
It sounds like you are subjecting this to your interpretation.
Sounds like you are grasping.
Here's a couple links with more info:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm (http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm)
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html)
I really do not care if anyone owns a gun so long as they do not use it, especially on me.
So, people can own firearms as long as they lock them up and never use them? What would be the point?
-
And again, firearms were a necessity to most of the people at the time the Constitution was written.
Most Americans do not need to hunt game to survive, nor are wild Indians about.
Xavier, you're not that ignorant. You know better, or you should.
Reasons for armed self-defense still exist and easily found in the news media.
But beyond that, the authors of the Bill of Rights were not merely trying to protect the right of people to hunt game or merely to protect themselves. Put it in context. Not that many years prior to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most if not all of the people who collaborated on those documents were involved in armed rebellion against the rule of Britain over the colonies.
Anyone who actually thinks the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is about hunting game or fighting off Indian attacks is willfully ignorant.
And don't give me that, but we couldn't defend against the army now, because yeah, we could. And trust me, if (I said 'if' you right-wingers) the liberals are right that the fascists are about to take over, when the new fascist regime is in place, the liberals will find renewed interest in the right to keep and bear arms. Suddenly the "assault weapons" ban will seem as stupid to them as it does to everyone else. And not because they'll be worried about hunting game or defending against Indian attacks.
-
I said, it is fine with me is people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them. Locking them up would be a good idea if there are little kids around the house, so as to prevent a Darwin Effect among the gun nuts.
It is indisputable that any government of this country could be overthrown with the sort of weapons that people are allowed to have. In Iraq, everyone was armed, and Saddam was not overthrown, despite the kleptocratic and brutal nature of his government, despite the fact that Iraq is a country with many more divisions in its body politic than the US. And Iraq lacked all manner of weapons that the US government has.
Do you really think that a guy with a even a military rifle has much chance against the electronic stun weapons that the Army has, or that he is going to be able to take out a predator drone? No one is going to overthrow the US government, no matter who is in charge, with the puny weapons of NRA members. Nor will it come to a situation where US troops will be asked to fire on citizens.The citizens can be repelled with all manner of nonlethal weapons, and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.
But continue to play with your damn guns. Just don't shoot in my direction, ok?
-
..........and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.
No.
Their oath is to protect the Constitution.
-
I said, it is fine with me is people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them. Locking them up would be a good idea if there are little kids around the house, so as to prevent a Darwin Effect among the gun nuts.
Thank you , it is nice that you are worried about us being diminished by our own idiocy.
How can we return the favor?
What can we gun nuts do to protect the willingly and willfully helpless against attacks that might produce a Darwin effect amoungst them?
-
I realize that the Marines are supposed to uphold the Constitution, but if ordered to attack riotous armed civilians with weapons they are told are non-lethal, I somehow do not trust that this would be entirely the case.
The fact is that some group like a rightwing militia or a bunch of incensed teabaggers are more likely to try to rebel against the government than, say, the Black Panthers or some anarchist group. And I do not give either group, or the NRA for that matter, much chance against trained US military. Only if the military could be induced to JOIN the rebellious types could this be even modestly successful, and I don't think modestly would be enough.
Explain to me how the NRA could overthrow the govt. I doubt seriously that this could happen. In any serious conflict, legal firearms are toys these days. This was obvious in Iraq, where no one overthrew Saddam and nearly everyone was armed.And there are few people more willing to become martyrs than Shiite Muslims. You don't catch Americans beating their backs with knoves to show their devotion to anything, not even their Taryleton Filters, their Mountain Dew, Jesus, or even their Harleys.
-
I realize that the Marines are supposed to uphold the Constitution, but if ordered to attack riotous armed civilians with weapons they are told are non-lethal, I somehow do not trust that this would be entirely the case.
The fact is that some group like a rightwing militia or a bunch of incensed teabaggers are more likely to try to rebel against the government than, say, the Black Panthers or some anarchist group. ................
Hahahahahaha
If our military were entirely loyal to the government or a single governing person you would be quite right there would be no hope for any insurrection no matter how justified.
Of the last three decades who was leading the big riots? Just askin.
During the Clinton administration there was a questioaire passed around amoung some Marines asking them how willing they would be to fire on fellow citizens , the outraged Marines refused to answer the poll .
The Chineese Government had this problem in the Tienanmin massacre , the first load of soldiers refused to shoot , so they were replaced with soldiers from the hinterlands who were more loyal to the government than the people.
Consider Kent State where three decades ago there were four fatalitys that we still sing about. In China the casualtys were very much not counted and if a Chineese citizen were singing of them the government might sell his kidneys to an American.
-
They didn't have to call in any troops from the hinterlands to get troops that would fire on citizens at Kent State, did they?
Again. the point is that the government of the US, cannot be overthrown with the sort of weapons that citizens are allowed to have. So the argument that Americans need weapons to defend themselves from bad government is of no value.
Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.
Play with your stupid guns all you like, but the fact is that this is not a debate about guardians of democracy, it is a debate about macho macho men and the knowledge that their big swinging dicks are insufficient to win them respect.
So they buy Hummers and guns and even if they have teensy pencil dicks they can swagger around like they had bowling balls in their scroti.
-
In Iraq, everyone was armed, and Saddam was not overthrown, despite the kleptocratic and brutal nature of his government, despite the fact that Iraq is a country with many more divisions in its body politic than the US. And Iraq lacked all manner of weapons that the US government has.
Care to provide the evidence to that claim? Your say so, just isn't going to cut it. Not Saddam's Republican Guard, not Saddam's military, not Saddam's Government, but "everyone". We await your proof
But continue to play with your damn guns. Just don't shoot in my direction, ok?
You don't "play" with Guns, and as long as you don't threaten me or my family, you have prescious little to worry about, from responsible gun owners
-
Do you really think that a guy with a even a military rifle has much chance against the electronic stun weapons that the Army has, or that he is going to be able to take out a predator drone? No one is going to overthrow the US government, no matter who is in charge, with the puny weapons of NRA members. Nor will it come to a situation where US troops will be asked to fire on citizens.The citizens can be repelled with all manner of nonlethal weapons, and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.
You underestimate the ingenuity of people. You also apparently missed the point about not banning weapons. You think too small.
-
Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.
Observe: The U.S. isn't Iraq.
-
Again. the point is that the government of the US, cannot be overthrown with the sort of weapons that citizens are allowed to have. So the argument that Americans need weapons to defend themselves from bad government is of no value.
Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.
Play with your stupid guns all you like, but the fact is that this is not a debate about guardians of democracy, it is a debate about macho macho men and the knowledge that their big swinging dicks are insufficient to win them respect.
That is a good point .
The second admendment doesn't say that the right to keep and bear small arms shall not be infringed . I would have a lot of fun with a recoilless rifle , perhaps a surplus howitzer 105mm.
The NRA has a long way to go yet, very few private owners have anything over a half inch bore.
-
Of course people play with guns. Target shooting, skeet shooting, even shooting rats in the dump: that is playing people do it to amuse themselves, and get thrilled when they score more hits, or baskets or holes or whatever, just as they play golf or tennis. It is a sport: people play at sports.
Go ahead, buy that howitzer. I imagine it is a tad expensive and/or difficult to get ammo for it. Just do not aim it at me.
-
I have had a daydream , years now.
If I owned several classic cannon and a valley .
I could rent artillery by the hour to people who wouod fire at junk cars downrange ,
could I charge enough to buy the valley and make the payments on the surplus artillery?
Could I get insured?
-
Of course people play with guns. Target shooting, skeet shooting, even shooting rats in the dump: that is playing people do it to amuse themselves, and get thrilled when they score more hits, or baskets or holes or whatever, just as they play golf or tennis. It is a sport: people play at sports. Go ahead, buy that howitzer. I imagine it is a tad expensive and/or difficult to get ammo for it. Just do not aim it at me.
::)
-
I said, it is fine with me is people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them.
If we don't use them, then how do we practice to make sure that when we need them, we know how to use them?
-
The fact is that some group like a rightwing militia or a bunch of incensed teabaggers are more likely to try to rebel against the government than, say, the Black Panthers or some anarchist group.
How do we know this is a "fact" - other than it being your esteemed word, that is?
-
If we don't use them, then how do we practice to make sure that when we need them, we know how to use them?
=============================================
I would suggest a target range, cans and bottles on fence posts and for the experts, the elusive skeet and of course, rats in a small-town dump. I would check with the dump keepers. There was no problem in Randal, Washington, because the local cop (actually the local State Patrolman) was a local and frequent participant. I would NOT recommend shooting into the air from your porch, which some of my halfwitted neighbors do to celebrate July 4 and New Year's Eve. What goes up, must come down.
-
I would suggest a target range, cans and bottles on fence posts and for the experts, the elusive skeet and of course, rats in a small-town dump.
Well, wouldn't all of those require us to "use" the firearms? What you said was "it is fine with me is [sic] people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them."
-
"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously, "use" as shoot them off for no reason in public, "use" as in shoot into the air from their front porch.
-
Those "uses" are by a fringe minority of irresponsible gun owners. So why the need to paintbrush gunowers with some massive derogatory gunnuts label sounds pretty biased & prejudicial on the surface
-
"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously,
How about a modest hip holster?
-
"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously,
How about a modest hip holster?
If he is proposeing conceiled carry I agree with him.
Most effectiveness at crime prevention comes from criminals being unable to know who has sting.
-
Most effectiveness at crime prevention comes from criminals being unable to know who has sting.
BINGO!
-
If BT gets a chance, perhaps he can point you to a link (http://www.post41.com/members/point.htm), where I wrote a nice summation for PiC, regarding this issue, which will further attempt to educate you and the 4 other current Supreme Court Justices, as it relates to the Bill of Rights, with the emphasis both the individual nature of those rights and the rationale for those rights against that of a REGULATED & oppressive government.
Courtesy of Bt (http://www.post41.com/members/point.htm)
And here's the pertinent excerpt to the piece, as it relates to the tact, Xo was trying to apply:
Now, to "me", it?s quite evident that the "militia" in question is basically the "people of the U.S." It stands to reason, when you read for content what Madison and Hamilton are espousing to, in regards to the protection of the U.S. beyond that of the Military. So what is the "militia" then? Well, according to definitions provided by Cornell, there are 2 forms, or "classes".
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are -
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the "well regulated militia" named in the Second Amendment. "The Militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females with the Guard established as only its "organized" element. This seems to make perfect sense, since the militia can be "both" organized (National Guard) AND unorganized (Individual citizens) elements. One can also understand gun control advocates who impress the wording of "Militia" to mean the National Guard only, while conveniently ignoring the much larger portion that would make up the rest of the Militia, and how consistent that falls in line with the Constitutional Framers, and their clear intentions. OK, I got that partisan rant out of the way.
Which takes us back to the Bill of Rights, itself. Clearly, when read in context, these 1st 10 rights are ALL geared towards individuals of this country, and their protection from an oppressive governing body. Every one of the 10, has wording that references individuals, including the 2nd. It is wholly illogical for 9 of the 10 Bill of Rights to be completely focused on "individual rights", yet somehow the 2nd most important right the Founders deemed vital, is somehow, a "collective right".