Steve James wrote:Afa the second amendment, Justice Stevens suggested that there was no need to repeal it, all that needed to be added were five words. "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”"
English is not my mother tounge, but the second amendment clearly seem to mean "the people" as a group, not individuals. It's the country that should have arms and the people as a group should be able to protect the country from outer threat. The militia is something you have to protect the country from outer threat, not something intended to use against the own people.
So the suggesten to use "people" to mean individuals instead of as the group who makes up the country, seems to just makes the problem worse.
"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."
It seems obvious that the intention of "people" is meant as the people as a group to protect the security and freedom of the state. Why do americans believe that the amendment gives them the right to walk around with guns in the street or have machine guns in their homes?