This made me spit orange juice this morning. From the NYTimes editorial page:
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
The bold is mine.
Every other bill of rights is individual but somehow apparently this one became a right for the government? Hmmmmmm.
The Diplomad had it right back in May.
The Second Amendment is right in there with the other nine in the Bill of Rights restricting the powers of the state, making the argument that certain rights belong to the people merely because they are human beings. Among those rights is the right to self-defense. A free country need not fear an armed populace. An armed populace provides a serious restraint on the state by denying it the exclusive possession of the implements of violence. It is not about hunting.
That is why we have this right. “A free country need not fear an armed populace”, “an armed populace provides a serious restraint on the state….” How would all that work if by “armed” they meant armed by the government.