Did our Founding Fathers intend for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to be an individual right or a collective right?
The courts moved back and forth on this issue until 2008.
Exhibit A:
DC vs Heller, 6/26/2008
However, Alexander Hamilton had a completely different take on the matter.
Exhibit B:
Federalist Paper #29
Which was it meant to be: Individual right or a collective right?
Discuss....
First one to vote unsure.
Mainly because I am not entirely convinced the original authors looked at the 2nd Amendment within the confines of an individual or collective right.
The Federalist Papers make a compelling argument to a point of view, it just was not the only argument at the time as to what the intention of the 2nd Amendment really was.
At the time, in a historical sense, it took a militia of individuals who owned their guns to secure freedom for the US in the first place... hence "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." The time period of the Constitution and Bill of Rights looked to an armed individual who owned their guns, who would also pool into militia, as a means to ensure a free State... hence "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State."
What I do not see from the period was an attitude that the Federal Government being solely responsible for the regulation of a militia over and above the people as a prerequisite for an Individual to own a gun, as that would mean the government would be regulating the very people who by militia (or collective) are the reason for a free State. The prevention of tyranny, which was a popular subject and frankly fear at the time. That concern did not stop with our Independence.
The idea of freedoms of speech, assembly, from religious persecution, the right to be armed, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures, etc. all suggested the people but none were with the intention of using a right to harm someone else's right.
In a sad way, the politics of our more modern fight about the 2nd Amendment forced the DC v Heller decision, and now we are stuck with the consequence until another case comes along perhaps forcing some other decision.