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.

This is definitely a memorable week in the annals of U.S. Jurisprudence.  That which I have always assumed to be the definition: that every law-abiding citizen has an unalienable right to keep and bear arms regardless of their connection to a “well regulated Militia.”  This interpretation has been affirmed by the supreme court this week.  Granted: the wording is mildly confusing and allows some license for interpretation but the overall context of the amendment was certainly to give individual gun rights “the right of the people.”   I believed the armed citizen was the thing that is a well-regulated Militia and that which ensures the security of a free state.

This representative republic: an experiment in individual rights… empowerment of the people instead of the government has always been the prevailing theme of all constitutional rights.  Certainly the framers intended the individual to have the right, not attach it to state duty.  At the time of its creation, the citizens in each state had the right… and many believed, the duty to keep and bear arms.  The constitution is explicitly incapable of denying individual rights and is only designed to grant particular, unalienable rights.  If the dissenting justices “refuse to believe,” and that, “there is no evidence of their intention,”  then they are lying commies.   There is no other part of the constitution which restricts individual rights. The citizens already had the right to bear arms… why would the framers, only in this one case and contrary to their stated principles, restrict a freedom which the people had already and limit it to duty with a state-militia?  It not even a possibility that they could have meant this.

Thank god we have 5 justices that are actually versed in the constitutional context that these words were written instead of the 4 who wish it to mean something else more in line with their “feelings.’   Even if you are not happy with the current President you have to keep in mind the consequences of liberal appointments to the Supreme court.