Yes. But using your argument, it would only restrict government employees from raping people.
The only reason it is unsettled is because of the modern legal fictions created by those who really can't grab more power for themselves with an armed populace. As the language of the Zmendment is quite clear, why does the USSC need to say anything on the subject at all? What other Rights do we have that must first be ennumerated by them before we can be said to have them? Is there a list somewhere?
And it remains my contention that I am not in any way violating my employers property Rights. They can no more claim a Right to my property than I could claim of theirs. Period.
Nonsense. A law properly passed by the government applies to actions by everyone. Constitutional rights only apply to actions by government.
What other Rights do we have that must first be ennumerated by them before we can be said to have them? Is there a list somewhere?
SCOTUS simply interprets the Constitution in response to legal cases brought before it. Up until now, the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals has not been brought before the court. Therefore, the highest court in the land has not determined this issue.