The right of the People

[TeddyR]

40. For 200+ years the Second Amendment has protected an individual right to keep and bear arms

Heller didn't change that understanding but simply clarified it. If you think that there was some huge groundswell of support for barring individual ownership of firearms prior to Heller please point it out. As a recent article noted (I can't remember if it was in the Guardian or The Atlantic) prior to Heller exactly 2 locations banned private ownership of handguns - Chicago and D.C. In other words, pre-Heller there was essentially zero support for banning private ownership of handguns, and now it would be unconstitutional.

Of course, the court might someday reverse Heller (don't hold your breath) but if it does then we'll simply see a constitutional amendment (one of the few issues for which there would actually be enough support to amend the Constitution) that reaffirms Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller. In any event, the plain language of the amendment is clear - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is nothing in the Second, regardless of how much you try to stretch it out of shape, that limits the right to militia members. If the drafters of the Second wanted to they could have said "the right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They did not -- instead, the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the same people referred to in the First and Fourth Amendments and has the same meaning. If you don't like what the Second says then get it amended, but don't pretend it says something other than what it does. That is intellectually dishonest and makes Dems look bad.