No one gonna talk about the lingusitic differentiation between 'the People' and terms referring to individuals?
With respect, Abaddon, I think you could probably make a more plausible argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated and archaic today. The path you have taken here strikes me as problematic.
I would question the basis for differentiating "the people" of the 2nd amendment from "the people" of the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments. Historically, the freedom "to assemble", the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and the retainer of non enumerated rights are understood to be individual rather than collective rights and there is a wealth of case law in America where this has been affirmed. I understand the argument that the 2nd amendment is an exception, but disagree with that assertion on historical grounds.
If you're familiar with American history, you are probably aware of the fact that this was originally a matter of intense debate. Advocates of the draft constitution argued that guarantees of individual rights were not needed. The so called "Anti-Federalists" disagreed, citing the 1689 British Bill of Rights and the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights as examples. Jefferson argued for a compromise --a draft constitution containing a Bill of Rights. In a letter to Madison, he stated,
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference."
It was with the understanding that a subsequent Bill of Rights would guarantee individual liberties that state legislatures agreed to ratify the draft document. Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms:
New Hampshire: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Virginia: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power." (North Carolina and Rhode Island almost identical)
New York: That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.
Contemporaneous state Bills of Rights also protected the right to keep and bear arms, sometimes in much more explicit terms.
North Carolina (1776) "[T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Kentucky (1792) "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"
Ohio (1802) "..That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power."
Indiana (1816) "..That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
Alabama (1817) "..That every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state."
Connecticut (1818) "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state."
Maine (1819) "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence and this right shall never be questioned."
In the same vein, there are numerous papers and letters written at the time that support the idea of an individual rather than a collective right to bear arms:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." (Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785)
"
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787)"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787)
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." (Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824)
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. (Hamilton; Federalist 29)
In the books that I've read, credit for the 2nd amendment is primarily given to James Madison. Madison publicly used the concept of an armed populace not just in contrast to, but in opposition to the idea of a standing army.
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. (Federalist 46: The Influence of the State and Federal Governments)"
(For those that don't know, the federalist papers were a series of articles published in prominent newspapers of the time in an attempt to sway the various state legislatures into ratifying the constitution.)
I believe this very tiny sampling strongly contradicts both the notion that the founding fathers did non envision a standing army and that they did not see an armed citizenry as a check on the same. (As archaic as that idea might appear today.)
Last, I'm certainly not a Narkissos, but I don't see a problem with the two clause construction of the 2nd amendment especially given its historical context.
I think I understand the example you gave, if "public library" is being used as a vignette for "militia." (?) People would be guaranteed access to books only within the confines of the library and similarly it could be understood that the 2nd amendment guaranteed access to arms only within the auspices of a militia.
But I don't think this fully captures the historical context of the 2nd amendment where a citizen or group of citizens could provide their own arms for such endeavors.(Michael Bellesiles discredited thesis notwithstanding) On that basis, I would question whether "Library" is an appropriate metaphor because it tends to obscure the idea that a patron might conceivably have the opportunity to bring his or her own books.
I think a closer parallel to the 2nd amendment would go something like this:
"A well-regulated public reading program being necessary to the literacy of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
This states a goal (literacy) and gives a means (public reading), but neither states nor implies either that it is necessarily someone else's responsibility to provide reading material or that possession of reading material might be prohibited in contexts other than public reading.. The first clause is justification for the second clause, that is to say, a primary reason for the right, but not an abridgement of it.
The Free Press Clause in the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution carried a similar wording to the 2nd amendment:
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty..."
It's not a perfect parallel, but is clearly referring to an individual and not a collective right and does not limit self expression to only one venue.
