2nd amendment interpretation error caused so much damage

fourth amendment :

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

second amendment :

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

_______________________

Comparing these amendments shows exactly how personal ownership of guns was never intended by the founding fathers.

Notice the use of persons and people, there is a substantial difference! Persons is personal, of course. but people refers to a group as a whole. Notice the second amendment is written in one sentence, specifically in the context of the security of a free State! If it were for personal protection it would have been written in a second sentence, in a separate context!

In other words, if the 2nd amendment was written the way the fourth amendment was, in a separate sentence, for personal ownership of guns, it would have been written like this :

The right of the people to be secure in their persons against threat of harm or death, have the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

__________________________

The second amendment clearly starts out as "a well regulated Militia", a military, not for their persons, not personal!, but for one reason only; for the "security of a free State", for the people as group, not as an individual protecting their persons.

Mixing up persons with people was the grand error missed by everyone for 250 years! And thereby cause mass civil death and injury, only to continue indefinitely.

From scotus:

And in favor of my arguement:

My arguments against that decision:

Separating "prefatory" and "operative" is plain misunderstanding the use of "subject-verb-predicate of sentence structure. The supreme court is trying to connect two different ideas in one sentence!

My analysis about the words "the people" vs "persons" thats the all critical difference the court failed to recognize! The fourth amendment makes it clear about personal protection by using specifically "persons not people!

Protection of a free state was to protect a sovereign state from invasion of the federal government! The states were "supposed" to have their own army!, obviously that never happened.

The subject of the amendment is the militia, for the protection of a state, not persons individually, and stating "well regulated" meaning all weapons are stored in an Armory!

The mention of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was just to make the point that the people of the state can receive a weapon from the armory for use in participation in a "well regulated militia".

In fact how is it a militia is well regulated about weapons, but when it comes to "the people" suddenly there is zero regulation mentioned!

The supreme court is wrong, separating "prefatory" and "operative" is total nonsense, it's one sentence with one point! The supreme court has already shown just how incompetent they are about decisions, ie overturning roe.

side note: on abortion, noting the fourth amendment protects our houses, papers, and effects right?, but not a woman's uterus? This is of course missed by the recent supreme court decision.

Also, for reference: