However, I argue that the 2nd has primacy over the 1st. Its language seems more emphatic to me. The 1st reads "Congress shall pass no law…" This would seem to limit the prohibition to violation to Congress only. The 2nd is much broader in scope and does not limit the prohibition to violation to anyone.

In my opinion, the 2nd not only recognizes the basic right to keep and bear arms, but it also commands the federal government to protect that right.

“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.”

A militia at the time was any able bodied man. In this age, it means any able bodied person 18 or over (I would imagine). The next portion of the sentence is very clear and unambiguous that it being necessary to the security of the state. I don't remember at any time when the government finally said, it's okay, we have your security in hand. However, if you connect any able bodied person being necessary to the security of a free state, then it is quite clear, in fact that the 2nd Amendment is nearly absolute, if not already.

The right of the 'People' to keep and bear arms is simply a bulwark against intrusion to the first definition of 'militia' and 'being necessary to the security of a free state'. They are in effect inseparable. You cannot legislate, with rationality, the 2nd Amendment away. Also, any municipality, in this case, Washington, D.C. that seeks to subvert, squash, eradicate, or diminish the 2nd Amendment, also runs the high risk of losing their 1st Amendment rights. What is the point of a 1st Amendment if the 2nd can't protect it? The 1st Amendment was specifically chosen to be the first for a reason, but without the 2nd, you cannot foundationaly protect the 1st and in essence protect our ability to exercise the 1st.

The loss of rights has been encroaching upon us for several decades. It has slowly moved us towards a totalitarian government by increments, and unless this trend is reversed I fear it doen't bode well for the citizens who will become merely subjects and serfs.

Some sources say the two can be used interchangeably, while others take your side in the matter. We appreciate your efforts to ensure proper word choice on the site.

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/992333/8556.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/d14.html

– The Editors

One little irritation that gets my goat every time: "…conducted to insure that individuals were keeping, and thus able to bear, arms." The correct word is "ensure."

I know, I know. But correct word usage is important.