In the 2nd admendment it say's "we the people"?

Question

is this a collective of people or can you infer that it applies to the individual; as in the individual right to bear arms?

Answer 1

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.

No where does it say 'we the people'. You are thinking of the Preamble.

There are two ways of reading the 2nd Amendment. The first is that the amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

The second is that the amendment was written to guarantee 'well regulated militias' and does not guarantee a personal right to bear arms.

Either way, the Supreme Court will rule on this in the next year when they take up the 2nd Amendment and Washington DC's ban of handguns. If the Supreme Court overturns the ban (which most experts believe will happen), then all handgun and possibly all weapon bans will be illegal. If they say the ban is legal, then you can expect other states, counties and municipalities to follow DC's example.

Answer 2

No it doesn't. That's the preamble.

The second amendment is "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."

The concern is whether "the right of the people" is a collective right or an individual right.

I believe it's an individual right.

Amendments 1 and 4 refer to "the people" and the rights are individual. People get hinky about Amendment 2 because they feel uneasy with others being armed.

Fact of life: Bad people will go armed anyway.
Fact of life: Shooting people is already illegal, with few exceptions.
Fact of life: The kind of guy who's willing to kill you isn't going to say "I'd like to shoot him, but it's illegal for me to carry concealed..."

Answer 3

Not in my FederalConstitution. The problem (if you are in the NRA) is the opening clause " A well-regulated militia being necessary ......" When the Constitution was enacted, the Militia was in the hands of the State Government, and supposedly, those in the militia could grab their muskets, go to the nearest assembly point and move out. The successor to the well-regulated militia is the National Guard. One group argues that the right to bear arms is limited to them, but even National Guard firearms are locked away in armories. The other group argues that the clause is not restrictive, and potentially anyone who can bear arms can join a militia. So there you are-choose.

Answer 4

"Amendment II

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".

No where does it say "we the people", that would be in the preamble. Currently, the more interesting portion of the amendment would be "a well regulated militia." Still, I think that precedent has well established the definition of "people" as referring to the entire body politic as well as to the individual; the right is guaranteed to the whole for the benefit of its parts. So yes the inferrence is there.

Answer 5

It actually says:
"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."
The argument is usually whether the "militia" refers to a formal body of people regulated by the government or all able-bodied citizens of the age of majority.
In practice it is treated as an individual right.

Answer 6

It does not say "we the people". It says:
"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."

I believe it clearly states that people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Answer 7

it is an individual right that is pretty clear, citizens of this country have a right to own a gun.

Answer 8

You need to read your Constitution again.