I see. So "the people" which is taken as an individual right when mentioned in the first and fourth amendment, magically becomes the militia and not the people

I see. So "the people" which is taken as an individual right when mentioned in the first and fourth amendment, magically becomes the militia and not the people in the second amendment (even though they could have said right of the militia instead and did not.) Then a militia can't be specified by US code, because that wasn't there during ratification of the bill of rights. No they were talking only of the modern National Guard which did not come until 1903, which they envisioned as the militia while magically excluding militia in the US Code. Nevermind that the militias in the late 1700s were often closely related to the body noted in the US Code, which was basically every able bodied youngish man (and possibly also some others.) >This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008 "Enshrined" is not a good word for it. For instance, as far back as the shameful period of slavery in the US, the supreme court in Dred Scott made the shameful but telling statement that argued blacks can't be considered citizens in part because that would give these black individuals the right of citizens such as the ability to keep and carry arms.