[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: Most of the federal courts have ruled the former. I think it was the part about "a well regulated Militia" mentioned in the second amendment that tipped them off as to the intent of the amendment.

The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it refers to a pre-existing right. Nothing in the Second Amendment itself would be able to modify what that pre-existing right was.

[romanesq]

Remain calm, all is well. And btw, John Roberts will write the majority opinion enshrining himself with the founders.

Feeling much better after the institutions in defense of liberty have embraced the battle. I can just see Chief Justice Roberts lining up everyone behind his lead opinion.

It may be the greatest joy he’s known. Really admire him.

[robertpaulsen]

"The language of the Second Amendment makes clear that it refers to a pre-existing right."

Correct. The pre-existing individual right to keep arms, and bear those arms into battle, as part of a well regulated state Militia. That right is protected from federal infringement by the second amendment.

If there's some other pre-existing right you had in mind, I'd like to hear it -- because it means that right has been violated now for over 200 years, wouldn't you agree? And how is that possible?