Anyways, the 2nd Amendment is not about crooks, or burglars, or hunting bears. It is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces.
This decision will be as narrow as the cert described. Answering the question that was presented and dealing only with that question. Does the District of Columbia have the right to ban an entire class of weapons. Specifically handguns.
I can't entirely agree with you. I say the 2nd Amendment not only protects the people's ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, but it also recognizes and strengthens the individual citizen's God-given right of self-defense -- a right that pre-dated the U. S. Constitution.
Therefore, in my opinion, and in addtion to the other aspects of its original understanding, A-2 most certainly IS about crooks and burglars and bears -- and even those hostile "Indians" mentioned by Justice Kennedy during oral argument.
semantic: "...we need to re-establish the concept that the People...have pre-existing rights to possess sufficient firepower...to challenge a potentially tyrannical government."
Leisler: "...the 2nd Amendment...is about the citizens having military weapons to attack and commit violence and killing upon tyrannical government forces."
Can those currently in positions of leadership be expected to openly come out with such clarity if the Founders themselves were reluctant to clearly word the Amendment as follows:
The Right of the People to alter or to abolish a Government and to institute new Government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms necessary to do so shall not be infringed.