+177 (second amendment interpretation 125)

Because it is related to a matter that can severely affect even those who do not participate with any choice, I tolerated being silent about how I see that collective right only argument as wrong thinking let them get convinced with whatever convince them. But now I think that it could be just a distraction and impediment for others against seeing what they really shouldn't have missed or ignored. The only elephant in this room that has not been accounted for, is the conditionality based on the type of general environment. If this poor elephant has not been standing here for the better half of a century or more and we are still living those earlier times of human quantitative strength against the military machinery then the Second Amendment would have clearly given individual right to keep and bear Arms. I have never hesitated on seeing it that way and I think if you survey people outside this country with basic following lines in thinking capability (for example above that of assuming a connection was claimed by the government between 9/11 and Saddam's Iraq just because of the kind of talk about the two that happened during that time) then I would be surprised if less than 80 percent would agree with me here. I cant even see why "self defense" needed to be invoked for that.

Yes, even in my first language the literal equivalent to "bear Arms" is probably more commonly used in the collective sense than individual one. Still, aside from anything else, if they wanted that meaning, do you think that they would have preceded that phrase with "keep and"? Do you think that they missed how preceding "bear" with "keep" could take it away from its idiomatic meaning as attached to "Arms" to its original meaning?

However, at least this side tried to suggest a material effect for the part before the second comma, unlike the individual right one which I do not know how much tolerating the way it treated that part would bring us closer to probably one day hearing the court respond to an argument about a part of the Constitution, with saying that it does not count because those who made it were just joking there.