It doesn't say the right of well regulated militiamen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How'd they mistake "the people" for professional soldiers? If the states were in such danger, why'd they ratify a Constitution giving Congress the power to ban the sale of guns? They didn't... And the 2nd Amendment does nothing but address an armed population, from militias to the people and their weapons. But there is only 1 right "written" into that amendment to the Bill of Rights and it belongs to the people, not the states, or militias.
Another misinterpretation, unfortunately. The 2nd Amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") concerns itself with two things only: 1) the security of a free state (that is the Union, not the individual States), which 2) requires a
well regulated militia. It is for
this purpose, that "the people" shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If the writers intended for every able individual to keep and bear amrs, they would have phrased it differently. The only reason that the people's right to keep and bear amrs exists, is the security of the State.
Had the writers intended to write an article on an individual's right to keep and bear arms, any mention of State and militia would have been entirely unnecessary.
You again mention professional soldiers. But the early Union didn't have a regular army; hence the Militia. It was all they got.
4) The amendment doesn't infringe upon the states' power, the law banning sales to people under 21 infringes upon the states' militia powers.
I have no idea what this means. what is "the states' militia powers"? "The amendment doesn't infringe upon the states' power"? The amendment doesn't even concern itself with that.
I'll ask again: why does it matter if its an individual or collective right? The law violates both... And the Bill of Rights is only implicitly about individual rights? The individuals toting guns would be "the people" to whom the right belongs, if the right belonged to well regulated militiamen the Framers wouldn't have mentioned "the people". How do you explain that?
It matters very much. A purely collective right to keep and bear arms means that an individual citizen shall not have arms at his disposal - unless he's in a (para)military organization. Consequently, "ïndividuals toting guns" would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
"The Bill of Rights is only implicitly about individual rights"? Where was that said? By whom?
Lastly, it's pretty obvious that a state miltia with no guns would be pretty non-effective. and
that's why the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists. Since no regular army was in place, there was little alternative than not to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Basically what is intended here, is a recognition of a status quo (which laws often are). The writers were very much aware of people (again: not
the people, as this is a different concept legally) having guns at their disposal. It was, at the time, the normal situation, given the often hostile Frontier.
According to Federalist 29 they wanted both, a well regulated militia backed by an armed population - and the amendment refers to both.
What they
wanted - apart form a well regulated Militia - isn't inferred. That would be interpretation. Whether they
wanted an armed population isn't really relevant; it already existed.
We the People of the United States
Which means exactly what it says. It doesn't say "We the People, a.k.a. the United States"
Obviously "aka" doesn't apply here. The USA wasn't known as such until the Declaration was offically published and recognized. But your example is very good, in the sense that "we the people"of the United States" doesn't refer to individuals, except in the sense that they are
citizens of the state. Which was my point. Both articles concern themselves with the relation citizen vs state, as they are state documents. And in this sense an individual's rights are only implicitly mentioned, that is in sofar as they concern affairs of state.
Back to topic, applying a document written for a late 18th century situation to a 21st century situation will obviously be problematic. (Which is one reason the Amendments exist in the first place, and jurisprudence has become attached to it.)
But keeping this in mind, if the 2nd Amendment writers were concerned with having a
well regulated militia, it stands to reason that arms traffic may very well have become "well regulated" also - as, to some point, it has.
At any rate, it's not quite clear how arguing against a restriction on arms trade can involve the 2nd Amendment. The example was named of freedom of speech, which obviously involves books trade, among other things. Thisnotwithstanding, most free states have regulations concerning books trade etc. Similarly, having the right to keep and bear arms (seen as an individual's right) does not preclude regulation of arms traffic.
My real reason for the right to be arms is that it is a check on government tyranny. All else is secondary.
With regard to the 2nd, that would be an argument contrary to both its content and its intent then.
)
