Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
OK, huh? I'm not sure what you mean. How about we get down to brass tacks: I'm doubt you have well-founded theories of what the Constitution says or entails. Since we're talking about a specific decision on a particular political controversy, to develop a position here about the implications or legal reasoning underlying the Court's decision, read and make reference to Robert's decision, Kagan's dissent, or case analysis.

Otherwise it's just "Englishman Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Lost Colonies' Constitution to Be"
The original Bill of Rights:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/W...2/introduction

Among the crimes of James II:

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
The Right to bear arms:

Subjects’ Arms.


That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

This is the enumerated "Right" in English Statute Law to which the Second Amendment refers in the Constitution. The reason that the Right is not enumerated in the Constitution itself is because the new United States took on all English Law, Common and Statute, when they gained independence.

James II used illegal religiously-based militias to keep the majority Protestant population pacified towards the end of his reign. So, the "Right to bear Arms" is not an absolute right but a general right subject to the law, and subject to restriction under the law so long as such restriction is not used to oppress certain groups.

The Bill of Rights also enumerates the need for a standing army to be authorised by Parliament, and not otherwise, and that's your "well regulated militia".

I'll sit and read the judgements later but you should not assume that I am as ignorant of your Constitution as you believe - it was after all written by English lawyers.