[robertpaulsen]

"This attempt by some senators to make the right to keep and bear arms a 'collective right' failed."

I'm not so sure that was the reason given. It is the Militia wording which gives it a collective meaning. It could have been that inserting "for the common defence" would have merely been redundant and unnecessary.

"Note also the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the first clause"

It was. Not any more.

All my post said was that, based on lower federal court decisions, it is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule it to be an individual right.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>I'm not so sure that was the reason given. It is the Militia wording which gives it a collective meaning. It could have been that inserting "for the common defence" would have merely been redundant and unnecessary.<<<

Certainly the Founding Fathers strived to avoid redundancy. For example, they did not mention this is a Christian Nation because that would have been redundant. But to believe a collective meaning for the 2nd, when our history (until the late 1960's) demonstrated virtually no infringement of the RKBA by either the federal or state governments, is analogous to believing the Tooth Fairy. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy, Robert?