Then why didn't they say that? Why does the 2nd read "the right of the people instead of "the right of certain citizens" or "the right of the classes of citizens named herein"?
You don't even lie well. You really shouldn't make such a hobby of it.
L
That's my question to you. Why didn't they say "the right of all persons" or "the right of all individuals" or "the right of all citizens"?
Well, the obvious answer is, that wasn't who they meant to protect.
The second amendment protected the right of "the people". That phrase, "the people", means a certain group. And who were they? The U.S. Supreme Court defined it in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (my underline):
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
In 1789, "the people" meant white, male, citizen landowners. Period. They were the only ones allowed to vote. They were the only ones who developed a sufficient connection with this country.
Today, of course, "the people" also include non-whites and women. But still not "all individuals" or "all persons" or even "all citizens".
That's twice you insulted me and twice I responded politely. There will not be a third.