Amendment II, United States Constitutionhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii
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.
Nowhere do I see the constitution giving one the right to self defense in that amendment. I wish people would stop using that argument. The unalienable rights are intrinsic to humanity and not something the constitution has conferred as so stated in the preamble. How we got to view the 2nd amendment as an extension of an unalienable right is beyond me. This is why I don't think it is for an individual, but for a group. To form a militia, the group has to be of like minded folks, there is no such thing as a militia for one. My first thought would be community having the right, and I would think the community should have the right not to bear arms.
I think the writers of the constitution were literate and knew the difference between the plural and the singular. It did not say "the right of each person." I think they were cognizant of the impact an individual would have in the pursuit of freedom, as certain individuals had sparked the sentiment of rebellion.
Maybe this is not much of an argument, but would it take 22 bound volumes to make this argument?