Tricky wording

       In the Constitution of the United States of America, there are many times when the term "The people" is used.  This usage was selected to represent "the people" as opposed to "the state" for the reservation of certain individual rights, powers etc.  This usage has always been interpreted to mean "an individual" or "a person".  It means this in the bill of rights, certainly.

       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.

Your bias is showing.

       Recently I've seen an image circulating.  You know the kind, someone tried to force a meme by putting words over an image.  Normally I ignore these things, as they are thoughtless ignorance encapsulated; but this one bothered me.  It represented the culmination of assumptions feeding confirmation bias, feeding assumptions, in a vicious circle.  Rather than direct traffic to the site hosting it; I, armed with the fair use doctrine, am posting it here.

       Let's disassemble the assumptions and biases here.  First this assumes that these two people have any intent at all.  They may simply have been walking down the street.  This isn't likely the case, but I'll cover that shortly.  Next, it assumes they are cowards, and that only armed services members and veterans can be brave, or defend themselves or their country.  Since the second amendment was born out of the fact that non military people armed themselves to liberate us from the British, this is especially off base.  Lastly the assumption that they are "playing army".  Because one cannot possibly be engaging in any activity with a firearm, unless you are acting immature.  This is an assumption feeding a confirmation bias and back.

       The first assumption is the funniest.  Ever run into armed people just wandering around?  Me neither.  That is because it doesn't happen, in this country, unless you are out hunting.  This was most likely from one of the many "Open Carry" events in places like Texas, which were to highlight the absurdity of the laws there.  It was lawful to carry a rifle openly, or a handgun concealed, but not a handgun where it could be seen.  This left enforcement far too open to interpretation.

       These protests worked, and as of this January it became legal to carry a handgun openly.  Other protests seek to "desensitize" people to the sight of a firearm, which should be no more alarming than the presence of a bat, hammer, or other tool.  At no point, that I could find, was the intent of these protests to intimidate anyone.  That is why the rifles are slung, and not carried.

       I have prepared an image as a rebuttal, which is every bit as ignorant, assumptive, and reinforcing of bias.  It was done for satire, and not because I am stating the contained words to be truth.

        See how this can be turned around.  These people are engaged in the same activity.  A collective agreement to protest.  Unlike the protesting people carrying rifles, however, their right to intimidate is protected.  (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm).  Paints a different picture now doesn't it?