The linked article I referred to was at the bottom of the posted article and was from Yahoo Finance. I have no issues with SAF, FR, or even Yahoo Finance, but I do have issues with you because I have repeatedly posted that what I read made no mention of the reference to the original justification for the Second Amendment.
You have repeatedly insisted that I didn’t read the decision so I must be ignorant. I even posted verbatim the article from Yahoo Finance and asked you to show me where, in that article, it made any reference to the Founder’s original intent. Rather than respond to my request, you, again, pointed out that I didn’t read the full decision and directed me to particular pages in the original decision which were not in the Yahoo Finance article.
So, you read the material at SAF, I read the article that was linked to the FR posting at Yahoo Finance. I am thrilled that the SCOTUS still acknowledges that the Founder’s original justification and intent was to provide the citizens a counterbalance against a strong central government. It’s comforting to know that, occasionally, the SCOTUS still provides passing acknowledgement of the Founder’s original intentions with the BOR, even though they don’t do it often enough.
The LSM certainly isn't going to bring up that aspect of the 2nd. regardless of it's importance. But it is a well documented matter of fact - and without that purpose being in the minds of the founders I doubt the amendment would be there - so the 9th. Circus was right to incorporate that into the decision.
I think of it as a much needed warning to the political class for a time to come when all bets are off, that they become subject to violent overthrow. Whether it's heeded as such by enough or any of them remains to be seen.