The language used today in many state constitutions is exactly the same language used in the Second Amendment and in many cases dates from the same period. Yet I am aware of no state whatever which has the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to refer only to people performing militia duties. How do you explain the fact that there is no indication whatever that ANY state used the term "people" in the fashion that you suggest was being used in the Second Amendment.
It is an accepted practice in language study to expect that contemporaneous usage will reflect the meaning of terms used in an historical context. Please supply at least one example of a state using the same term, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", meaning ONLY people in the militia collective.
Furthermore, your claim that a narrowing of the class constituting "the people" creates a collective is identical to claiming that the entire population of persons would be considered a "collective". The term "collective" has been used to deny standing to ANY individual. Even a narrow interpretation of "the people" in the Second Amendment in no way allows one to conclude that the members of the protected class do not have individual standing to have their right enforced.
Quit asking. I already did. See my post #315. It only protected people in the militia collective. And please don't say that the 1776 Virginia State Constitution therefore implies that it was illegal for everyone else, including 85-year-old women.
"Furthermore, your claim that a narrowing of the class constituting "the people" creates a collective"
It's an individual right which applies to a particular group of people collectively. It's like the right of "the people" to assemble or the right of "the people" to vote. It's an individual right which applies to a particular group of people collectively.
I call that a collective right. I don't care what you call it. You know what I mean.