You’ve got to admit it’s pretty funny that you said nowhere else does the constitution use “the people” to refer to individuals and then you had to come up with an explanation quick for why literally every other mention of “the people” refers to individuals rights.

Right, but both say they are a right of the people so by your logic they don’t protect individuals. If you wan to change your position that then fine.

“if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world."

-Senator Pomeroy during the debate over the 14th amendment

It was. Many progressives don't like the idea of the 2nd amendment as an individual right for example, but the framers of the 14th explicitly intended it to extend the right to bear arms to former slaves against both the KKK and local governments.

The 1st says the people have a right to assemble, and the 4th says the people have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. So does you as an individual not have the right to assemble? Or against unreasonable search and seizure?

"And also nowhere else in the Constitution do they refer to " the people" and have it mean " an individual""

If true, that would be devastating to 1st and 4th amendment rights, wouldn't it?

Is Caetano not relevant to the current questions over the “in common use” test?

There are no exceptions in the prohibitor for medical marijuana are there? How would those cases be different?

This is true, but also the head of the largest gun control group in the nation is the policy advisor who came up with Michael Bloomberg’s stop and frisk policy. So gun control is for white people too.