John Lewis leading gun control sit-in on House floor

[RiverNoord]

77. Um...

I don't. How about the right 'of the people peaceably to assemble?' One person cannot comprise an 'assembly' of human beings. That First Amendment right is inherently what you would call a 'collective' right, as it is utterly impossible for one person to exercise alone. That specific right is entirely about protecting people in groups. And we do accept time, place and manner restrictions on the right. They're necessary in order, in part, to ensure that assemblies are, in fact, peaceful.

It is also inherently impossible for one person to comprise a 'militia.' Our English use of the word literally means, among other things, more than one person.

The argument that 'the militia' is 'the whole of the people' is absurd. Would you include people in prison for violent crimes as militia members? Or for treason? How about people who are blind? Without some pretty strict regulations, do you expect that people with dark skin and members of the KKK would comprise any sort of effective militia? How about people actually engaging in an armed conflict with a local government? According to Constitution, they're the ones that 'the militia' are supposed to be directed against. And, according to the Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility for 'organizing, arming, and disciplining' the militia. It's in that context that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is fixed. You may believe that there are other important reasons why people should have a right to own guns, but they don't flow from the Constitution.

Your position is an absolute that makes no sense in actual context. Yes, the legal rights of 'the people,' and, moreso, their physical safety, are supposed to be protected by militias, when insurrection or invasion occur. But not all of 'the people' can be actual, functioning members of a militia.