In asserting that the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the collectivist point-of-view, the author rationalized that "the more collectively the right is interpreted, the more broadly Congress can legislate to restrict the right to bear arms" (347). In effect, what made sense in Busch's analysis is that this particular right, as stated in the Constitution, must be interpreted in the proper context. Thus, Emerson's ownership of a gun for militia purposes, whether he has the intent to use this or not, is a threat to civil society; hence, the Court's decision to deny him his rights to bear arms is considered just, in the collectivist's point-of-view. Spitzer (2003) argued against Busch's position regarding the interpretation of this right. For him, the right to bear arms is considered part of the individual's rights, thus, s/he has the right to practice this right -- an individualist's point-of-view of the right to bear arms. Spitzer countered...

However, his arguments do not complement the objective of the Constitution, in which the right to bear arms is just a part of the whole. Moreover, an individualist point-of-view of interpreting the right to bear arms serves a lot of objectives from different people, with different points-of-view. In effect, an individualist stance does not resolve a gun control issue that can pose as a danger, threat, or problem to the civil society.
Bibliography

Busch, M. (2003). "Is the Second Amendment an Individual or a Collective Right: United States vs. Emerson's revolutionary interpretation of the right to bear arms." St. John's Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1.

Spitzer, R. (2003). "The Second Amendment "right to bear arms" and United States v. Emerson." St. John's Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 1.