Even when forced, through logic and grammar, to support the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, a liberal still has to add a caveat:

 ...That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms...

 Of uncertain scope?? It clearly states ..."Shall not be infringed". That is about as certain as it gets.

First off, the framers used language and punctuation relevant to their time, hence the "controversy" over the term militia. "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" probably wouldn't be written exactly like this in modern language, as it runs two thoughts into one sentence. When the 2nd was written however, it was intended that individual citizens would grab up their privately owned firearms to defend their community in times of emergency.

Disregarding the fact that all other Amendments, when referring to "The People" are widely recognized as individual rights, what exactly does militia mean?

Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings:

• Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws
• The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
• A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
• An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces
• The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya

"One or more citizens" sounds kinda "individual" to me.

"Defense activity" ... "defense of [laws]. I would say defense of person and private property would fall under "defense of a public's laws.

"The entire able-bodied male population of a community"... "to enforce the law" also sounds like a group of individuals bearing their own arms.

"An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces" - "Citizen", singular, means just what it says - an individual. And since neither the Army Reserve nor National Guard (formed in 1908) even existed at the time the 2nd was written, how can it be used as an argument that the 2nd refers only to the National Guard and not an individual right?

I won't even discuss that the 2nd might refer to the Russian police...

The term "militia" is derived from Latin roots:

• miles /MEE-lace/ : a fighter or warrior
• -itia /EE-tee-ah/ : a state, quality, condition, or activity

In its original sense, therefore, militia meant "the state, quality, condition, or activity of being a fighter or warrior." It can be thought of as "combatant activity", "the fighter frame of mind", "the militant mode", "the soldierly status", or "the warrior way".

In common usage, a "militia" is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state.

Persons are usually said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past. There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law.

So, even though I don't subscribe to the collective right theory, which is the only Constitutional argument the anti's have, even granting them their perception that the 2nd only applies to a militia STILL can't be interpreted as a collective right. Simply put, "militia" is a group of armed individuals, or even a single person, defending their community and it's laws, including self defense.

The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers

These are all great comments, especially the comment from Beowulf.

I did a search on D. C. crime statistics and found some interesting data.  The peak population in D. C. was in 1968 with a population of 809,000.  Since that time the population has been in decline with a population of 550,521 in 2005, the last year with available statistics.

The crime statistics for D. C. show that in 2005 there were 195 murders, 166 forcible rapes, 3700 robberies, 3971 aggravated assaults, 3577 burglaries, 14,836 larcenies, and 7720 vehicle thefts.

In terms of rates per 100,000 population that means 35.4 murders, 30.2 forcible rapes, 672.1 robberies, 721.3 aggravated assaults, 649.7 burlaries, 2694.9 larcenies, and 1402.3 vehicle thefts.

The years the record numbers of the above crimes and the numbers are as follows: murder, 1991, 482; forcible rape, 1969, 776; robbery, 1969, 12,366; aggravated assault, 1993, 9,003; burglary, 1969, 22,902; larceny, 1982, 33,435; vehicle theft, 1968, 11,354.

The years for the record rates per 100,000 of the above crimes, and those rates are as follows:  murder, 1991, 80.6; forcible rape, 1969, 97.2; robbery, 1981, 1635.1; aggravated assault, 1993, 1557.6; burglary, 1970, 2873.7; larceny, 1995, 5833.8; vehicle theft, 1995, 1839.9

You might wish to compare and contrast the crime statistics and especially the rates per 100,000, of the above numbers with the rates in Kennesaw, GA.  In D. C. no one can legally own a gun, in Kennesaw, GA, every head of household is required by law to keep a gun and ammo in their homes.  There are exceptions, such as felons, and those who have religious or moral qualms.  Kennesaw's city council passed the "shall own" law unanimously in 1981 or 82.  As a teaser, I present the following: 1981 (pre gun law) population was 5,242, with 1,026 burglaries per 100,000 population. 1982 (post gun law) population 5,308, with 665 burglaries per 100,000 population.  2002 population 22,664, with 264 burglaries per 100,000.

There was an immediate 40% drop in burglary rates after they passed their "must own" law.  So, obviously, the presence of guns do not cause crimes.  In fact, it appears that the advertised required ownership of firearms causes a dramatic and immediate reduction in crime.  You can research numbers and rates for murders, rapes, and other types of crime in Kennesaw on your own.

While researching these statistics, I came across an interesting (somewhat long) article by a gentleman named Robert L. Kocher.  It is a most interesting read, here.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan