Gun Control & RKBA

were individual and natural (and necessarily pre-dating the nation and its governing documents), with the federal government's role as that of defending these rights. Some have described the language of he Bill as "negativist" in structure ("Congress shall make no law...&quot . In a real sense, the language is far more powerful and economical than if government was seen as a doler of rights; if rights are given, rights can be taken away.

According communal rights results in endless definitions of what a community is, how many there are, and how a community's rights are defended (or not). Some have speculated that the expression "the People" implies communal rights, most notably in the 4th; yet even here the government is charged with describing in a warrant "....the persons...to be seized." It seems obvious to me that rights must necessarily be individual if there is any chànce the government will have the legitimacy and power to defend them.

I have no problem with the expressions "right to an education, housing, health care, jobs, etc." But these are terms of art and not rights, and nevertheless well within the powers of the government's charged duties in the original Articles. (For that matter, states do not have rights either.)

The so-called "militia clause" seems more like a reminder of the powers the government has regarding the calling up of a militia, as explained in Article 1, and not a conditioner of the individual RKBA. As some have pointed out, the mention of militia may have been political, to assuage the fears states who were distrustful of a standing army; after all, the BOR was undergoing the quite political process of ratification. Far from the people being restricted by militia service if they wish to bear arms, the government is restricted to only calling up its citizens (Article 1) who already have the pre-existing RKBA.