Guns in Bars

[TKoontz 0]

I do my best to stay out of these arguments as they tend to be much more fun to watch play out, and I do my best to keep out of the crossfire (pun intended ). That and I have little stake in most of them, such as this one, but I stumbled across an interesting article while doing some research. Of special interest are the data tables on pages 4 and 5 (still reading through the whole doc. there may be more).

[url]http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

What it boils down to is that NYPD officers had an average 15% hit probability when engaged in a 'gunfight' (defined as a shooting encounter between an officer and an armed suspect).

When you're a trained police officer popping off an average of 5 rounds per encounter where 88% of these encounters are 7 yards and closer and there's only a 15% chance you hit your target...how well do you think the average (likely with less training) person will fare?

I'm certainly not against ownership or ccw, but if/when a civilian does decide that lethal force is the best choice, what's the likelihood they'll be shooting on par or better than 15% when they're scared as hell and preparing to end life?

I've been following this thread off and on for a while so I'm not sure if this point has been brought up; if it has, my bad, continue on and I'll watch from the bleachers.
If not, I hope this is relevant information and I'll check up on the source to verify legit-ness

Rooster out

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If you think that there are safe places which are immune to criminal violence, then that just demonstrates how naive and uninformed you are on this issue.

I lived on a rail test car (see photo) for 10 years. I'm going back on the rails come Monday. I have been on nearly every inch of rail east of the Mississippi and on a large portion of rail west of the same. I have tested every inch of rail in Mexico and a good portion of the CP and CN in Canada. I have been through every town along those rails and have been out in a large number of those towns. You do not tie up in the best part of town. Rail yards are generally in the slum areas. In all of the years being in these parts of towns, I can honestly say that I have never encounter a situation where I needed a gun. I have lived in the rail yard in Harlem as well as the station yard in Jamaica, NY. Partied in the bars in the same area. Never had any need for a gun. The only incident that I saw was at the Lariat in Fort Worth. No gun would had prevented that guy from getting his throat slashed.

According to the Bureau of Justice the chance of being a victim is extremely low. However, according to Texas DPS, you have a far greater chance of being a victim of assault that causes bodily injury from a family member. In fact the number one crime in Texas is family violence.
In 2004 assault that causes bodily injury (convictions) exceeded assaults of the same outside the home.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
2004 - 14,159 vs 12,560
2005 - 15,117 vs 10,450
2006 - 17,473 vs 7,752
2007 - 18,507 vs 7,620
2008 - 20.239 vs 8,276
2009 - 20,290 vs 8,443

You have a higher probability of being harmed by a family member inside your home than you do by a stranger outside your home. You are in far greater need to arm yourself against family than anyone else.

I am far from naive and uninformed. It is the paranoid that need to inform themselves of the actual facts and ignore the fear-mongering of the NRA.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

What it boils down to is that NYPD officers had an average 15% hit probability when engaged in a 'gunfight' (defined as a shooting encounter between an officer and an armed suspect).

You are correct. I just had this conversation with a cop who often trains with S.W.A.T. in the KC area. That cop is my nephew. According to him, it is extremely hard to hit a target that is moving in an adrenaline fueled situation. I've shot at a police range and did not do as well as I thought I would. Faster the pace, harder it is to hit the target.
I asked Ryan what he thought of CCW holders. While he is in favor of CCW, police much prefer that they never pull their gun. He tells me that in all of his years on the force, he has yet to see where CCW holders made the situation better, only worst. Also, they are more of a danger to those in the immediate area as well as a danger to the officers. On a number of occasions when they were searching for a suspect, they would come across some yahoo with a gun and a permit, also searching for the suspect. If not for their training the permit holder could had been shot. Even worst, he fears one of these idiots will fire on them, the police. As Ryan tells me, the cops live with a lot of fear when on the job. Searching for a person who may have a gun is downright scarey. Add in some idiot who believes the 2nd amendment gives him the right to run around with a gun and the fear is even worst. As he tells me, CCW does nothing to reduce crime and it is usually stupid rednecks who have CCW permits.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

According to the Bureau of Justice the chance of being a victim is extremely low.

Correct. But that doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to go around unprepared for a violent attack. Because, there ARE a lot of violent crimes. Despite the low probability of it happening to a specific individual, there ARE a lot of victims every year. And it is not your place nor the place of government to force everyone to spend their lives as defenseless victims.

Quote

It is the paranoid that need to inform themselves of the actual facts and ignore the fear-mongering of the NRA.

Go ahead and search my posts and see if you can find the last time that I quoted anything from the NRA. Try it!

Being aware of the possibilities of crime and being prepared for it does not make one "paranoid". No more so than wearing a seat belt makes one paranoid about car accidents, or having a fire extinguisher makes one paranoid about fire.

However, by suggesting that anyone who is prepared to defend themselves is paranoid, you are exhibiting symptoms of gun-o-phobia, i.e. you are paranoid yourself, about guns.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I asked Ryan what he thought of CCW holders. While he is in favor of CCW, police much prefer that they never pull their gun. He tells me that in all of his years on the force, he has yet to see where CCW holders made the situation better, only worst. Also, they are more of a danger to those in the immediate area as well as a danger to the officers.

Well, there we have the opinion of one officer - proof positive!

For LOTS of stories of armed citizens preventing themselves from becoming crime victims, see the KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

How does that square with your all-knowing police officer?

Quote

Add in some idiot who believes the 2nd amendment gives him the right to run around with a gun and the fear is even worst. As he tells me, CCW does nothing to reduce crime and it is usually stupid rednecks who have CCW permits.

Don't look now but your anti-gun bigotry is showing. Thanks for coming out of the closet, though.

People who believe in the 2nd Amendment are not idiots. Nor are those who believe in the remainder of the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Even the Founding Fathers and the current Supreme Court believe in the 2nd Amendment - are they idiots too?

"Stupid rednecks", really! Ha! You are a riot. Too bad you just forfeited all of your credibility.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

For LOTS of stories of armed citizens preventing themselves from becoming crime victims, see the KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files

I fully agree with the outcome of the articles at that site. Those are people protecting themselves.
The "stupid rednecks" Ryan speaks of are the idiots who have to let everyone know they have a gun. It's a waste of their time and resources when they are called out to confront the person who is brandishing.
My nephew is the K-9 guy and works with the S.W.A.T. team and the drug task force. Typically, Ryan and Diesel (his dog) are the first to go through a door or around a corner. The last thing they need is armed citizens running around thinking they are helping the police. They are not helping. They are putting the police in greater danger. They are also putting themselves in danger of being shot by the police or the person the police is looking for. The last thing I want is to hear that Ryan has been killed in the line of duty by a suspect, and even worst, by some yahoo running run with a gun thinking he is helping the police. They really do prefer that a CCW holder stay inside their home when a suspect is being sought.

Quote

People who believe in the 2nd Amendment are not idiots. Nor are those who believe in the remainder of the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Even the Founding Fathers and the current Supreme Court believe in the 2nd Amendment - are they idiots too?

CCW is not a right. It is a privilege much in the same way as a driver license, or even a hunting license is. You have a right to own a gun. You do not have a right to a CCW permit. If CCW was a right, a permit would not be required. As a driver license or a hunting license can be revoked, so can a CCW permit. The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to merely run around with a gun. It only allows the right to own a gun. Permits issued by the State grants the privilege to carry. Step outside the rules and that privilege will be revoked.

As for another post, I never claimed that you quote the NRA. I use to be a member of the NRA. Was a member from the early 70s into the late 80s. It seemed that they went from protecting the right to own, to mostly fear-mongering, and constantly requesting that member send more money.
John, I am all for ownership. Spent labor day weekend shooting a number of firearms, from a Glock 9mm, a shotgun, several 22s, to a Remington 270. I fully plan on buying more firearms when the money is there to do so. But, as a responsible gun owner, I realize that there are people who have no business having a gun. I realize that there is a need for certain laws to restrict certain people from gaining access. I realize that there are loopholes that need to be shut. I can walk into a gun show, here in Missouri, and purchase any type of firearm without ever being questioned. If I can do that, then a person with a lengthy felonious background can do the same. Surely, you are not in favor of gang bangers being able to buy assault weapons that will be used to kill people. Part of being responsible is realizing that the elements that can effect our rights need to be restricted. Realizing is in your favor.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


However, I still rank the drunk with a gun as more dangerous than the drunk with the car keys.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, in your mind that is the case.

Reality is a different story.

I know. Murder by car key is very prevalent.

My point was that a person drunk in a bar with a set of car keys or with a gun was not an apples to apples comparison. If some people do see that as a valid comparison, I don't really have much to discuss with them.

I don't have any problem with sober person having a gun with him. But I would rather deal with a drunk person trying to use a car key than dealing with drunk trying to use his gun. (Hence why it isn't a valid comparison)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

CCW is not a right.

In the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment, in the phrase "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", what do you suppose "and bear" means? If "keep" means that the citizenry can own guns and store them in their homes, and that's all the Founding Fathers ever intended, as you imply, then why do you suppoose they also added the words "and bear"? Don't you think that they meant for the citizenry to also be able to carry their arms freely?

And in fact, a few states do exercise "constitutional carry", whereby their citizens can carry guns without any special licensing. Many other states allow guns in cars without any special licensing. Just because many states regulate carrying on-the-person, doesn't mean it's not a right.

I have to register and possess a voter registration card in order to vote - would you say that this means that voting is only a privilege, rather than a right?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

For what reason does anyone need to be armed when in a bar? Do they think they are there to protect everyone from the "bad guys?" Are they only there to show off their gun? What, exactly, is the reason that some feel that they need to be armed while inside a tavern?

if you're an active CCW permit holder and normally carry, what reason can you think of that they would disarm just because they're at a bar?

What a stupid question.

Uhmmmm, let's see... maybe if they might have a drink or two or three or four or five...
If the bar a person goes to is so damn dangerous they need to be armed, maybe the answer is not being armed, but finding a safer place to go.

Do you honestly believe that every CCW permit holder will refrain from drinking while carrying?
Of course, some in this thread believe that it is alright for a person to have a drink or two while carrying.
Do you condone breaking the law as long as it is only a drink or two?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you honestly believe that every CCW permit holder will refrain from drinking while carrying?

We don't determine what freedoms citizens are allowed to enjoy based upon only things that "every" person will do properly. There's always someone who will abuse every law. That doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to exercise that freedom. We accept the fact that people are imperfect, but that most people are good, and therefore allow freedoms in general. And when certain individuals prove themselves unworthy of that freedom, then they are punished and their right to exercise that freedom is taken away. That's the way things should work, in order to allow the greatest amount of freedom to the greatest number of people. Just because someone will inevitably drink while armed, is not enough of a reason to deny everyone the ability to be armed in a bar while refraining from drinking. Just as because some people get drunk and drive, is not enough reason to deny everyone the freedom to drive.

Quote

Of course, some in this thread believe that it is alright for a person to have a drink or two while carrying. Do you condone breaking the law as long as it is only a drink or two?

You're getting mixed up between two different things. As I understand the Virginia law, NO drinking is allowed in bars and restaurants while armed. In many other states, drinking is allowed in restaurants, and it is not against the law to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner, as long as you don't become impaired. You should not presume that anyone who drinks while armed is breaking the law, as that depends upon what state they are in, and what kind of establishment they're in, and/or how much they've had to drink.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My point was that a person drunk in a bar with a set of car keys or with a gun was not an apples to apples comparison. If some people do see that as a valid comparison, I don't really have much to discuss with them.

your point is that you don't like guns much and as a result have made a declaration here that you can't actually support with factual data. And rather than defend it, you're just going to repeatedly make the statement.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For what reason does anyone need to be armed when in a bar? Do they think they are there to protect everyone from the "bad guys?" Are they only there to show off their gun? What, exactly, is the reason that some feel that they need to be armed while inside a tavern?

if you're an active CCW permit holder and normally carry, what reason can you think of that they would disarm just because they're at a bar?

What a stupid question.

Uhmmmm, let's see... maybe if they might have a drink or two or three or four or five...
If the bar a person goes to is so damn dangerous they need to be armed, maybe the answer is not being armed, but finding a safer place to go.

Do you honestly believe that every CCW permit holder will refrain from drinking while carrying?
Of course, some in this thread believe that it is alright for a person to have a drink or two while carrying.
Do you condone breaking the law as long as it is only a drink or two?

is this a thread retread, or did you already forget your non responses last time?

And you seem to have changed the question - before you couldn't possibly imagine why someone who already carries their gun around wouldn't continue to carry it here. (How dumb would one feel if they carried 10 hours a day, but left it in the car and got killed 50 ft away from their best tool of self defense?) Now you want it to be 'why would a person choose to carry when they plan to get shitfaced at a bar.

Does bars have signs on them indicating if there will be a bad incident today? No.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You just can't decide on what you actually want to talk about.

nonsense, you cannot defend your position so you are trying to move the goal posts.

Can you give me a reason why a sober person should not be allowed to legally carry a legal gun in a bar?

Because that is what this whole thread is about.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You're mischaracterizing what I've said. Again. This is now the second time I will specifically direct you to my post #41 in this thread.

And I have read it SEVERAL times now. You are starting to act like Kallend and his "I have said it before".

Simple question.... Why should a sober person who has no criminal history, not be allowed to legally carry a legal gun in a bar?

Because despite your dodging... This thread is about if a sober person should not be allowed to carry a legal firearm in a bar... nothing else.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It is reasonable to think that a person with a gun in a bar might have a few beers.

Then it is also reasonable to also believe that a guy with a car might have a few beers... Or that a guy on a Dropzone that has a beer fridge or a bar might have a few beers.

Quote

If the gun is concealed and no one knows he has it, what is to stop him from having a cold one?

If your car keys are in your pocket, what is going to prevent you from tying one on?

Quote

A few, in this thread, believe it is alright to have a drink or two while armed.

I think that the legal driving limit and the legal carry limit should be the same... After all, we are talking about a guy ACTUALLY driving vs. a guy that just has something.

That being said, I neither drink and drive, nor carry and drink.

Quote

For what reason does anyone need to be armed when in a bar?

Why does a guy need to be armed at all? Why does a guy need a gun at home? Why does a car have airbags? Why do people jump with AAD's? Why is it smart to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen?

Maybe you should answer why a guy that is sober and can legally carry a gun in a restaurant, grocery store, mall, down the street... Cant carry in a bar?

Quote

Do they think they are there to protect everyone from the "bad guys?"

No only themselves and their family/friends.

Quote

Are they only there to show off their gun?

No, and just because YOU may think that way, it does not mean anyone else does.

Quote

What, exactly, is the reason that some feel that they need to be armed while inside a tavern?

The same reason they are armed at the grocery store, the mall, the restaurant, the bank, the... well you get the point.

Again, if a person is legally allowed to carry in ALL these other places... What specifically makes a bar off limits in your eyes?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Not necessarily an anti gun site as they favor personalized guns to stem the misuse of guns.

And would you approve of those same standards being applied to your car or motorcycle? Think of the benefit in reduction of car thefts!

Quote

I've seen bar fights and even been in one or two.

I haven't been in one.... So maybe YOU should not carry a gun in a bar, but why should *I* not be allowed?

You asked why someone would want to have a gun... I have two examples for you:

Quote

Once in Fort Worth at a place called The Lariat, someone got their throat slashed. Once in East St. Louis at a biker bar called Froggy's when a Saddle Tramp fired a shotgun through a window.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

how well do you think the average (likely with less training) person will fare?...I'm certainly not against ownership or ccw, but if/when a civilian does decide that lethal force is the best choice, what's the likelihood they'll be shooting on par or better than 15% when they're scared as hell and preparing to end life?

I think that if faced with a guy that has a gun and he is trying to kill you... The guy with a gun stands a much better chance than the guy without a gun.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Add in some idiot who believes the 2nd amendment gives him the right to run around with a gun and the fear is even worst. As he tells me, CCW does nothing to reduce crime and it is usually stupid rednecks who have CCW permits.

Stereo type much?

I happen to have a BA and a professional job... I have never owned a truck and have never been hunting.

Quote

As Ryan tells me, the cops live with a lot of fear when on the job. Searching for a person who may have a gun is downright scarey. Add in some idiot who believes the 2nd amendment gives him the right to run around with a gun and the fear is even worst. As he tells me, CCW does nothing to reduce crime and it is usually stupid rednecks who have CCW permits.

Still want to claim that people who carry a gun are "idiots" and "stupid"?

[billvon 2,475]

>And would you approve of those same standards being applied to your car or motorcycle?

They do. They all have VIN numbers. Your car's registration lists them. That's one way they recover stolen cars and return them to their rightful owners.

>Once in East St. Louis at a biker bar called Froggy's when a Saddle Tramp fired a
>shotgun through a window.

Clearly the answer to that problem is to equip everyone with shotguns, so no one feels left out when the shotguns start a-firin' out the windows. You could do a "free shots for shotguns" night.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I can honestly say that I have never encounter a situation where I needed a gun.

In all my years carrying a gun, I have also not needed it.

In all my years skydiving, I have never needed an AAD.

In all my years of owning a home, I have never needed a fire extinguisher.

In all my years of driving, I have never needed airbags.

Quote

According to the Bureau of Justice the chance of being a victim is extremely low.

The chance of needing a gun, an AAD, a fire extinguisher, an airbag are all also extremely low.... Does that mean we should just not use them?

Quote

I am far from naive and uninformed.

You do seem to think that anyone with the ability will use it.... Says something about you.

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

support with factual data

Your agencies don't seem to keep track of murder by car key. Stupid isn't it....

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>And would you approve of those same standards being applied to your car or motorcycle?

They do. They all have VIN numbers. Your car's registration lists them. That's one way they recover stolen cars and return them to their rightful owners.

Re-read his post and try again.... You missed the topic by a mile. This was not about serial numbers or vin numbers.

Quote

Clearly the answer to that problem is to equip everyone with shotguns, so no one feels left out when the shotguns start a-firin' out the windows. You could do a "free shots for shotguns" night.

Again, he asked a question and then he answered it later unknowingly.

You should READ before posting.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I have to register and possess a voter registration card in order to vote - would you say that this means that voting is only a privilege, rather than a right?

Voting is not a right. There is no such Federal Right that says so. The Voting Right Act states there is a fundamental right, yet voting remains a State granted privilege. Look it up.

Quote

In the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment, in the phrase "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", what do you suppose "and bear" means? If "keep" means that the citizenry can own guns and store them in their homes, and that's all the Founding Fathers ever intended, as you imply, then why do you suppoose they also added the words "and bear"? Don't you think that they meant for the citizenry to also be able to carry their arms freely?

The lines are muddled in the interpretation of of 2nd amendment.
Let's look at the amendment.
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States:

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.

What, exactly, is "A well regulated militia"?
Is it a body that trains together? Or can it be an individual? Can one person be a militia? I doubt it. I doubt that. Merriam-Webster defines "MILITIA" as:

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Are you a member of a well organized militia? I'm not.

We can go further and get into the semantics of the use of the word "People."

Merriam-Webster defines "People" as:

1
plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2
plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons —often used attributively
3
plural : the members of a family or kinship
4
plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
5
plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group
6
: lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
7
: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

The amendment never refers to an individual, only a "militia" and "people." The amendment would be much more clear had they used "the right of a Person", referring to an individual, rather than "People", referring to a collective group, the militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

But all of that beside, I am in favor of ownership and I am a gun owner. I'll hide my guns before I would ever turn them over to any government.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I fully agree with the outcome of the articles at that site. Those are people protecting themselves.

And somehow it is impossible for a person to protect himself if he were in a bar?

Quote

The "stupid rednecks" Ryan speaks of are the idiots who have to let everyone know they have a gun.

This thread was not about them... Brandishing is illegal in pretty much all states.

Quote

CCW is not a right.

It is in the Bill of RIGHTS... Keep and BEAR arms.
"Bear" means "to carry".

Quote

It is a privilege much in the same way as a driver license, or even a hunting license is.

Show me where the right to drive in in the Bill of Rights? Show me where a hunting license is in the Bill of Rights.

Quote

If CCW was a right, a permit would not be required.

Is getting married a right? Then why do you need a marriage license?

Quote

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to merely run around with a gun. It only allows the right to own a gun.

You clearly have not read the 2nd Amendment.

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.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Voting is not a right.

Really????

Article I, Section II, Clause I:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

How do you think they are chosen by the people?

The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The RIGHT of WHO to do WHAT again?

The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XVII, which was ratified by the states in 1913:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XIX, which was ratified by the states in 1920:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XXIV, which was ratified by the states in 1964:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."

Again... REALLY????

Quote

The amendment never refers to an individual, only a "militia" and "people." The amendment would be much more clear had they used "the right of a Person", referring to an individual, rather than "People", referring to a collective group, the militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...of_the_United_States

The SC has ruled it is an INDIVIDUAL right. And the phrase "The People" is in several amendments....

Do you think that "the people" does not apply as an individual in the 4th?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, the SC HAS ruled it is an individual right. And "to bear" means "to carry" by pretty much any dictionary.