<P> Stevens went on to say the following: </P> <P> The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well - regulated militia . It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States . Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms . Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common - law right of self - defense in the Constitution . </P> <P> This dissent called the majority opinion "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation . In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens' interpretation of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" was referred to as a "hybrid" definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an "incoherent" and "(g) rotesque" idiomatic meeting . </P> <P> Justice Breyer, in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that "the amendment protects an' individual' right--i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred". </P>

History of the 2nd amendment the right to bear arms