SR> During the Spring Semester, I took a class on Government, and learned
 SR> something I am surprised I never heard before.
Well, we've heard such drivel from Sarah Brady for quite some time.
 SR> it interesting that the Supreme Court has NEVER interpreted the Second
 SR> Amendment as an individual's right to own firearms.  It has ALWAYS
 SR> interpreted it as the right of a state to have a militia (National
 SR> Guard).   
Not true.  You'll no doubt hear more from more informed sources, but the
only 2nd Amendment case I've ever heard of that made it all the way to the
Supremes was the Miller case in the 1930s, and that one clearly affirmed an
individual right to possess any common infantry weapon (the disputed point 
was only whether a sawed-off shotgun qualified).  This is because the 
Supremes have repeatedly held that the militia IS NOT the National Guard,
but the people as a whole.  The Supreme Court has, on the other hand, many
times referred to the 2nd Amendment in passing as an individual right while
making decisions on other matters.  The Dred Scott case, for example, hinged
on the thesis that if Scott were recognized as a citizen rather than 
property, he would then have to be allowed arms.
Whoever taught your government class was preaching 180 degrees off the 
prevailing legal scholarship of this century.  One wonders why.
... An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject.
--- FMail 1.22
---------------