No, not quite. Notice what comes after "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment: "...to be secure in there persons", then later: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
The 4th amendment outlines specific rights afforded to individuals. There is no such verbiage in the 2nd amendment. Instead, all that is referenced is the State.
> "...to be secure in there persons", then later: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Exactly, that protects the state from it's persons being searched. Because as you just said, the phrase "right of the people" denotes a collective right:
> The 4th amendment outlines specific rights afforded to individuals. There is no such verbiage in the 2nd amendment. Instead, all that is referenced is the State.
When the 4th amendment mentions "right of the people" it means the right of the state. Any persons are just entities of the state and the right does not belong to the individuals. Otherwise it would have said "the right of the persons", as you had argued earlier in the thread regarding the language of the 2nd amendment.
The 4th amendment outlines specific rights afforded to individuals. There is no such verbiage in the 2nd amendment. Instead, all that is referenced is the State.