Quote Originally Posted by Joe Lerch
I'm afraid it's not a misconception, but the predominant point od view of the law.

The Constitution does not give rights to the people. The people own all the rights and give certain rights to the federal government. Whatever they don't is retained by them. The amendments were added to make sure that the government could not use its granted powers to curtail certain rights. Each amendment has to be looked at as a whole. Most of the amendments, for example the 1st, have no limitations on their proscriptions, but the second does. And it's important enough to come before the proscription itself. You are allowed to own and bear arms forthe prupose of supporting a strong militia.

If there's anyting we need to be conservative about it's the Constitution (lately, we seem to have forgotten that). Until the Constitution is amended, the 2nd amendment has the militia provision, and you can't ignore it. It says what it says and nothing LESS.
Which is more or less what we are doing, because the national guard is run by the government it takes the protection of the people out of the hands of the people, thus negating the purpose of a militia all together. Thats why I dont understand the counter arguement that we have the national guard so we have to be armed, we have seen how the national guard has been used time and time to oppress our people.