Well, people is plural and your conveniently forgetting that the introductory clause expresses a context. If you bother to read all the Amendments this use of plural vs. singular is important.
Why do you suppose that they started talking about well regulated militia BEFORE they start talking about the right of the people? That is called context.
If you look at the very next, 3rd amendment,
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
They are clearly not talking about "people", even in the abstract, but "owner", the singular specific.
Now, go to amendment #4,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Here, we have the plural "people" but several times, "persons" the singular special case, is clearly articulated to mean individuals of the class "people", the abstract.
If you want to rewrite the Constitution, then that is fine. But there is a process to do that. You can go an start a Constitutional Convention that says "the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Good luck. |
