And yet Kalifornia explicitly states that there is a right to self-defense. But somehow I imagine that that is still insufficient. To you, the right to self-defense without a mention of arms is meaningless. And the right to keep and bear arms, without a mention of self-defense is also meaningless.
If the Supreme Court rules in Heller that there is no fundamental, individual right to self-defense, then we have wasted our time in pushing Heller. But, IF THERE IS SUCH A RIGHT, then no sane person would claim that the right to keep and bear arms does not have as a purpose to permit the exercise of such a right.
As I pointed out before, perhaps in a different thread, "militia" is simply the plural of "self-defense". There is little that is contained in one that is not also contained in the other.
Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.
Kennedy seems to say Miller is insufficient, aka "deficient," as he suggested, for the purpose of individual, self defense versus the militia, a common defense.
The Miller decision can still be useful for other infringements from the states and the feds, IMHO.
As I have pointed out ad nauseum, there is no hard link between the two. Many individuals have the right to self defense, but do no have the right to self defense with a weapon. Prisoners, felons, illegal aliens, small children, the insane, foreign tourists, etc., ALL have the God-given inalienable right to self defense. Just not with a weapon.
Self defense with a weapon is a right that WE protect -- WE decide who may use a weapon, what weapon may be used, and under what circumstances it may be used. And that includes everything from a pointed stick to a machine gun.
"And the right to keep and bear arms, without a mention of self-defense is also meaningless."
When the Founders were discussing the second amendment, there was no mention of self defense. Justice Stevens saw none. If you have such a reference I'd like to see it.
"If the Supreme Court rules in Heller that there is no fundamental, individual right to self-defense, then we have wasted our time in pushing Heller."
There IS a fundamental, individual right to self defense. Not with a weapon, of course.
But if you're saying that the only victory you will accept is if the U.S. Supreme Court rules the second amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to self defense with any weapon you choose ... well, prepare to be disappointed.