Interpreting the Second Amendment: Plural 'People' or Singular 'The People'?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is a topic of ongoing debate. The phrasing of the amendment, particularly the use of 'people,' has led to significant disagreement over its intended meaning.

Plural 'People'

In the language of the time, the reference to 'people' is understood as plural, denoting each individual person. The amendment could almost be written as 'the right of people ...' without 'the' and maintain the same meaning. However, it is important to note that the amendment restricts its rights to the people, a subset of the general population—specifically, U.S. citizens. This perspective is rooted in an individualist interpretation, where each individual possesses certain rights that cannot be taken away by the government.

Singular 'The People'

Collectivists interpret 'the people' as a singular, unified entity—a group of individuals considered as one collective. This view is often likened to a 'bag of peanuts': many individual peanuts combine to form a single bag. In this context, the right to keep and bear arms would be a collective right rather than an individual one. Similar to voting, which is mandated by the Constitution but can be limited by states based on various criteria, the right to bear arms could be similarly restricted based on collective defense needs.

Historical and Legal Context

Historical and legal scholars argue more strongly for the individual right interpretation. They assert that the amendment protects a fundamental right held by all humans, barring specific categories such as minors or individuals who have lost rights through proper legal procedures. However, those advocating for a collective right interpretation argue that the right to bear arms is a collective one similar to the right to vote, which can be limited by states based on various criteria.

For example, under the collective right interpretation, while the government could not disarm all Democrats or Republicans, it could impose such restrictions on lesser-known party members, such as Green party voters, as long as a substantial portion of the population could still effectively defend themselves. This perspective suggests that the government can limit the right to bear arms for specific groups, provided it maintains the collective defense capability.

Conclusion

Whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right or a collective one remains a matter of debate. Both interpretations offer compelling arguments based on historical, legal, and philosophical perspectives. Understanding the nuances of this debate is crucial for anyone interested in the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.