IN the Fourth Amendment it states; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” . I wonder what group of people the Fourth Amendment it referring to.
The Fifth Amendment uses the word person twice but it is also referring to criminal prosecution and I don’t believe at the time trying a group of persons would have been thought of.
The Sixth Amendment uses personal pronouns; “to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” No doubt we’re talking individual rights here.
The Ninth Amendment short and sweet: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But which group of people are they referring to?
The Tenth Amendment is also beautifully short; “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.” But again one has to guess what group of people the founders were referring to.
It should be obvious to any intelligent reader that in every other amendment in the Bill of Rights than the Second that the word People refers to any one of the many individuals that make up the People that constitute the citizens of the sovereign States that make up the United States.
The anti-gun nut cases cling to those two subordinate clauses “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” like a drowning man clings to stray bit of driftwood. But they are subordenate clauses that can be dropped from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence. Which when done leaves; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights the word “People” obviously means individuals. I can’t imagine that the founders would be consistent in their mean everywhere else but the Second Amendment.
The anti-gun nut cases cling to those two subordinate clauses “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” like a drowning man clings to stray bit of driftwood. But they are subordenate clauses that can be dropped from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence. Which when done leaves; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
A ‘Well regulated militia’ at the time of the signing of the Constitution meant one thing... One that was well practiced in the use of their firearms.At that time there was a training system called the ‘Regulations’ that detailed how to properly load aim and fire a muzzle loading rifle.
I believe that an Englishman came up with the Regulations. It was used by the British Army and was so well known that the professional members of the Army were known as the ‘Regulars’. That tradition carries on even to today where we have the ‘Regular Army’ and the Reserves.
So if you wanted to put the second amendment in modern perspective you might say that:
In order to preserve the peace and safety of of the United States the private citizens must practice regularly with their weapons so as to be competent with their usage and maintenance. The right to own and use their weapons may not be taken away from them or have undue or unjust regulations placed upon their rights to own, use and carry them where they desire.
Which simply acknowledges the need for and desirability of a citizen militia. It says nothing that limits the right to the militia. Any "C" student in English can tell you that.