With the Supreme court decision to ALLOW us to keep our rights given to us, I thought I would write a little on what I think about the 2nd amendment using other important documents written around the same time.  The Supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution, not to legislate on it.  Therefore, I am going to prove what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the 2nd amendment. 

To do this I will first bring us to a time before we had written a Constitution.  A time before there was a United States.  A time where there was a small committee of 3 looking over a document called the Declaration of Independence.  I know its just another small document that doesn't have much to do with anything now right?(or so the libs may say)  hehe, but I am going to use it none the less.

I will scan down and find a paragraph that contains a mention of us securing our rights and what to do if government becomes destructive. 

"That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Now, I think to myself.  How, if under any circumstances, would the people abolish a government that is becoming destructive, if we don't have arms to do it?  Throw pitchforks?  Maybe fling snowballs at them (for those of you who have seen John Adams haha).  Perhaps a club will do.  I think not.  The only way for the people to rise up and defeat the national government is to use arms.  The military would be much too strong to overcome without, and if the government is becoming destructive, I very much doubt they wouldn't be using the military to do their bidding.  To that point, I argue that Thomas Jefferson supports the people having arms to defend themselves from the government.  How could any sane person object to that argument. 

I now move to another of our founding fathers using yet again, a different such document than the Constitution.  Again, a time before televisions, a time before the Constitution.  The Federalist Papers have three such names in them and all of them did great things for our country.  Alexander Hamilton set a foundation of credit our country has built upon until today, James Madison Jr. was our 4th president and John Jay was our first chief justice.  All of which had a hand in the writing of the Constitution.  These are hardly people you can ignore when interpreting the intended meaning of our amendments.

I turn our time to Federalist Paper #28.  Written by Alexander Hamilton to the people of New York.  I will go straight to quotes:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Here he speaks of the people needing to take to arms if congress or the President betray us.  Now, he speaks specifically of arms in this statement, so there can be no other means by which he says the people could overthrow the government, if need be.  We must rush tumultuously to arms...Tough to argue against that.  Again, any sane person could not possibly do so.

I now move onto the 2nd amendment itself.  Now, the parsing of the sentence in question is causing many of these problems.  I will try to prove why I think the way I do on this subject.

"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."

Here is how I interpret the law.

Subject, what its for, what it is, final solution.

Throughout the Federalist papers, PUBLIUS creates many sentences in which you have to parse them carefully and correctly to have the desired outcome of the sentence.  Reading the above paragraph you must be able to see that.  They use commas much differently than we do today on a regular basis, and that is what makes this so hard to interpret.  They constantly use them as sub-sentences or describing areas for the previous parse.  I think it is fairly obvious that the second portion is directed at the first.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...  It is describing what a militia is used for or why we need it.  For the security of a free state.  The third part is where many people have many different thoughts.  I believe it describes what a militia is.  A militia is the right of the people to bear arms.  Without that right, there would be no militia.  The third applies to the subject.  Since a militia is the right of people to bear arms, then the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed. 
I for one believe the common sense interpretation makes perfect sense, but where people can skew the law, they will do so. 

Since the ruling came out that the 2nd applies to the individual, doesn't that mean that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional?  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

The job of the Supreme court is to interpret the original meaning of the law, not create their new meaning of it!

Using other historical documents written by our founding fathers, along with the obvious meaning.  How can anyone argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says?  We get guns!!!

Sources:
Declaration of Independence
Federalist Paper #28

Isn't it obvious?