[Sender]

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

[Political Junkie Too]

Also, the first three words of the Constintution, "We the People..." establish this Constitution. It would be ridiculous for We the People to not give us (the people) the rights in the Bill of Rights. If not us (the people), then which people?

-PJ

[Wildbill22]

I believe that the left will redefine the other amendments with the new meaning of "the people" to mean collective, as they wish to with the second. The Communists also seem to have used the collective interpretation as I remember. Coincidence?

[Pharmboy]

Exactly.

And, as Judge Silberman said in the DC decision, if people as smart as Madison and Adams wanted this to be only for militias, they would have said just that, and NOT added "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." End of story, we keep our guns.