[andyfox]

There are many contemporary examples where the use of the word "people" was in reference to collective, not individual, rights. For instance, the Pennsylvania Constitution says, "the people of this state have the sole, exclusive, and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same."

But the fact of the matter was that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because those in favor of it feared, correctly, that without a Bill of Rights, it would not pass. The records of the deliberation in the states about the Constitution, as well as the text of the Constitution itself, show that the issue its adopters and detractors were addressing was the militia. The individual right to keep and bear arms was not present in the contemporary debate because it was not at issue and, consequently, not addressed in the Bill of Rights.

Had there been any reason for the federalists and anti-federalists to discuss the issue of the private, individual rights of ownership of firearms, certainly the record would indicate that discussion. It does not. It does show lots of discussion of militias, standing armies, conscientious objection to taking part in militia duty, and the fear of a powerful national government trumping citizens' militias.