2A: Group or individual right?

[tortoise1956]

This seems to be the main point of contention. There are those who argue that the second amendment was meant to be a collective right only, not an individual right. With that in mind, here is a link to various quotes from the 18th century. Sources include state constitutions, letters, speeches, and newspapers.

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm

The theme throughout this is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms both as part of a militia, and for hunting, personal defense, and protection against oppression. This is not a collective right. It becomes hard to understand why representatives from the same states that expressly described in their constitutions an individual right to keep and bear arms, would write an amendment that is only a collective right. That is a stretch worthy of a world-class contortionist.

Also, those who tried to use the "British scholars" paper to discredit Heller did themselves an unintentional harm. Here is an excerpt taken from a recent post that represents the scholarly dissent to Heller, concerning collective versus individual rights:

In {DC} v. Heller (2008), the {US Supreme} Court examined the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, correctly finding that the right to “have arms” in Article VII is the basis of the right enshrined in the Second Amendment.
The Court also correctly recognized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship {to wit Joyce Malcolm} upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm. Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition, and should not be incorporated as against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Notice this says that Heller correctly recognized the individual right? As for the argument about self-defense - for those who argue that Blackstone didn't talk about a right to personal self-defense, the colonists of that day (contemporaries to Blackstone) evidently believed otherwise. The right of Englishmen to keep and bear arms for their own defense is mentioned more than once in this link.

Based on the above, I reiterate that the second amendment is an individual right, based on a pre-existing individual right in English law, and should be interpreted thusly.

Comments? Please provide sources when possible, and try not to resort to name-calling and character assassination...