Seven in Fourteen

[X_Digger]

65. You're missing the primary concept. No rights are granted. Rights are protected by the BoR.

You can replace one word for another to your heart's desire, but if you miss the actual concept we're discussing, it's patently useless.

Regarding your interpretation of 'the people' - you need to read US v. Verdugo-Urquidez:

'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community...

Hell, try Justice Stevens in Heller-

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

When Madison proposed this amendment to the constitution, would you similarly assert that he was establishing a "collective" right?

"The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."

Or the PA state constitution- "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."

Was that similarly "collective"?

Utter balderdash.

Regarding the militia clause- If I said, "I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- Would you assume that stores only sell soda, or that I was only going to buy one item? The militia clause is the reason that the right is protected. It in no way limits the right to that purpose, no more than the contents of my shopping list limits what the store sells or I might buy.

This gets back to your misapprehension about 'granting' rights. If the right pre-dates the constitution (it does, see US v Cruikshank), then how can a protection for one purpose limit it? It does not follow.