Consider the usage in the fourth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Clearly this does not suggest a collective right to be secure in a collective home, collective personage (wut?) or collective papers, against unreasonable search and seizure. This, quite clearly, states an individual right, as guaranteed to "the people" as opposed to "the state"
No other usage of the phrase "the people" however, has proven more problematic than in the second amendment. While the meaning is perfectly clear, matches the other uses, and in fact has been ruled by the Supreme Court to explicitly mean an "individual" right; there are still those who contest that meaning. While I do not believe for a single second that any of the people saying this actually think it is true, so much as wish it were true; they do still claim it. To that end I believe we either need a ruling by the Supreme Court, or better yet, an amendment to the Constitution; that clearly states the following:
"Wherever the phrase "the people" appears in the Constitution of the United States of America, it will be construed to mean "an individual".
This should clear up any "confusion" on the part of any who think otherwise. I wish only that I had a way to get a message back to the Founders, to let them know that their choice of using "a person" and "the people" synonymously would lead to much, unnecessary, legal wrangling.
