How does the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantee an individual the right to armed self-defense?

Your realization shows a clearer understanding than some members of the Supreme Court.

Here are all kinds of interpretations

I have my interpretation, but there are more.

I think any interpretation should be read with this in mind:

Most people don’t realize that the Constitution is what the Government can’t do.

If some random worker at Wal-Mart wants to search your personal backpack, that is not a violation of your 4th amendment rights. You can’t take them to court over it.

If a police officer told the worker to do that, that worker is acting as an agent of the government so it’s illegal.

If a cop did it, it’s illegal.

However, the link I posted are interpretations from people who are professors, so hopefully they have a better understanding on what is the Government vs what is the individual.

A common way people interpret the 2nd amendment, is in two parts. You have the right to form a militia and you have the right to bear arms. Most people consider the Bill Of Rights to be everyone’s individual rights. So the 2nd amendment would apply to individuals as well as groups. That is, at least, how I was taught in college. I have an Associates in Criminal Justice and a good understanding of the Bill of Rights. I was taught it applies to the individual, that is also what I believe.

(And that is not me saying I am credible, just offering my background for my interpretation)

Things have moved on since then and the United States now has well-regulated Militia funded to the tune of around one trillion dollars a year. John Doe keeping a loaded revolver at home is no longer necessary. If the security of the state is threatened by anything it is political rot from within and all the weapons in the world won’t protect you from that.

I agree with @Sergeants interpretation, as do most people I know.

Most Supreme court cases view it as an individual right, and interpret it based on the circumstances of the time these rights were written.

Chicago v. Macdonald They ruled that the second amendment applies to both state and local governments. They also mention it is the individuals right to bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller ” Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.””

It also says that, according to the time this was written, the militia was all able-bodied men who could be called to serve in the military.

~
Everything in the Bill of Rights is an individual right. And most supreme court cases are going to interpret them within context of when they were written, if that makes sense.

It goes without saying that men have the right to protect themselves from Indians.

It clearly states that the right extends to the people, A.K.A. individuals. Some will argue it does not just like someone can argue the sky is not blue. It’s as clear as day though.

Or bears.

@flutherother You may not realize many rural towns rely on county law enforcement. We do not have 24–7 local PD to come save us. Bear got your kid, are you going to just watch? A lot of people protect valuable livestock, too.
As far as well regulated militias, they exist, maybe more in the Midwest and South than other areas. Shrug.

@KNOWITALL Yep, couldn’t agree more. Town nearest me is covered by Sheriffs. My local PD has less than 10 full time officers, and isn’t even a “local” PD. They serve another city and we contract them to help us because we don’t have our own technically.

Response time is a thing, folks, and it ain’t always fast.

@KNOWITALL @SergeantQueen There are many rural communities here in Scotland that have no police force at all and sometimes, particularly in the smaller islands, it might take days for a policeman to get to the scene of a crime. These communities more or less police themselves, crime rates are extremely low and no one owns or feels the need for a gun. A farmer might apply for a permit to own a shotgun to protect his sheep from foxes but he would have to prove it was necessary.

@flutherother That’s good for Scotland but this is the USA. It’s a protected right here and it’s needed for various reasons other than defense. Some reasons many simply won’t think of or even understand. For one thing hunting in parts of the US has become necessary. Wildlife management is funding through permits and is needed and to keep things under control where we have eliminated most natural predators. If you are considering defense this place is flooded with guns unlike Scotland. It’s unfortunate but the talking point used “the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is pretty well true. Cops can’t help you in most domestic violence situations but they can help with the aftermath and paperwork after. Many in this country are hell bent on running cops out too so there is that. I don’t care which side of this issue someone falls on but most do agree that the laws here for guns are kind of messed up. They are incredibly complicated, ineffective and in some cases just nonsensical or even silly. I would say that some of out gun laws are even dangerous and negligent and we are in this situation because many legislators don’t understand the issue well enough to be competent when they draft these laws to begin with.

@flutherother There are some significant differences, yes. 5 million people in Scotland, 316 million in the US. You also have double the police officers!
I also noticed your assaults are double ours, even with our much larger population. And knives are a popular weapon there?

Just for the record, I’ve never shot anyone and don’t intend to. I suppose if a crackhead broke in I could grab my hatchet or knife, but likely the criminal is armed here.

The argument seems to be that there are so many guns in the United States that everyone needs a gun to defend themselves. I can a sort of understand that but it wouldn’t it be better if no one had guns? It would almost certainly reduce the homicide rate. People can kill with knives but the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people is 1.2 in the UK and 5.0 in the USA.

I’m not participating in any arguments about gun ownership. I don’t care about Scotland, either.

I think I’d want to have one when I move out. My life is more important than others, so any argument just doesn’t matter to me. I’m not looking to change anyones mind and no one is changing my mind. Plus, this OP isn’t even a gun debate question, but people just can’t help themselves can they?

@flutherother I mean yes but that’s not where we are at. I think it’s actually a right we should keep even if they’re not “needed” anymore. Only, at the moment they are needed. We do need to provide better gun safety laws, better required training and more accountability though. Between the gun lobbies and the anti-gun activists it’s all messed up pretty bad.

@flutherother I don’t want to back a bear or timber rattler off with a hatchett, myself. :)

@KNOWITALL If there were bears roaming about in the woods I might feel differently but ours were exterminated centuries ago.

@flutherother I read on Quora that your country cleared everything out hundreds of years ago. Funny you said that. We have bears in neighborhoods since we border deep woods.

I was chased by a bear once while backpacking. A few weeks later someone was mauled at the very campsite we stayed at after that encounter.

@Blackwater_Park We had our first bear season last year. Sausage is good. :)

@flutherother I truly understand the concern but regular gun owners like us don’t hurt anyone. And many of us support stronger gun laws.
As it is, I could buy a gun from some guy down the street with zero paperwork and be 100% legal. They aren’t registered here. But you do need a license to carry at all times.

I have never had it but I hear people swear by BBQ bear meat. I know several who hunt them every year. I don’t know how many tags are given out annually but I’m not so sure it’s enough. They’re starting to invade populated areas more and more.

@Blackwater_Park Never had bear bbq but I’m down. Do you have feral hogs there? Now that looks like good sport, and food.

We do, plenty. I have heard that the meat is not very good though. I don’t really hunt but I’m not opposed to it. I usually like deer meat but there is a prion disease affecting them now so consuming it makes me nervous.

@SergeantQueen …this OP isn’t even a gun debate question…

Aw, c’mon, Sarge! You’re correct, and I was asking about the meaning of the Second Amendment; that being said, there’s no denying the relationship between the two subjects.

@Strauss Sorry, I just get frustrated when questions get derailed (and I did contribute to it this time), But yeah, you can’t ask any 2A question without it derailing…