Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[BjornF16]

I think you'll find that "the people" are considered a reserve (unofficial and unorganized) militia. The 2nd Amendment addresses only "well regulated" (official and organized) militias.

Stan, you are incorrect. Please see Supreme Court Ruling in Presser v People of Illinois:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge...6/252.html

As you know, Supreme Court rulings are the Law of the Land.

Additionally, here are the words of the 2A:

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.

.

"well regulated" meaning trained in firearms use...not ONLY a official militia organization. "necessary to the security" meaning it does no good if the people have guns but don't know how to use them (or bullets to fire from them). The Supreme Court has said that the 2A applies to us all.

Finally, Cory is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that the Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the PEOPLE from the Federal Government, and the 14th Amendment places that burden also upon the States. See Supreme Court Ruling in McDonald v. Chicago (http://guncite.com/court/fed/McDonaldvChicago.pdf)