I’ve explained to you, using the exact text of the amendment itself, why earlier interpretations were incorrect. Even the Supreme Court realized this and ruled accordingly. (...as they did with the Gobitis decision.) Earlier courts were not infallible.

I’m actually willing to listen to you on this. Please explain YOUR interpretation of the 2A and how it correlates with the actual text of the amendment.

Actually, I do. Unlike you, I can read and apply basic sentence structure and meaning. Also, unlike you, I have explained the 2A to you in modern language without changing the meaning. Also, unlike you, my interpretation is inline with that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ha! OK.

You’re really irrational.

Cracked is not the law. The Heller decision is. Suck it up, buttercup.

I’ve explained to you how the text of the 2A shows that it’s an individual right. I’ve asked you to show me how it does not. You’ve pointed to words like “militia” and “well regulated” and I’ve explained to you in clear English how you’re just confused by their inclusion in the 2A. I’m sorry that you don’t understand…

I do happen to agree with the current SCOTUS interpretation of the 2A. That also happens to be the NRA’s opinion. I’m not an NRA member.

I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but you’re not really that bright, are you?

Put as many asterisks near the ruling as will make you happy. History isn’t the current state of affairs. It’s academically interesting, but it’s just mental masturbation. But, as long as we’re doing that...

I’m not the one denying reality here.

These folks are all very, very confused by the inclusion of the word “militia” in the 2A, and they don’t seem to have the ability to read and think critically. None of them can explain how, exactly, the 2A doesn’t point to an individual right.

The Heller decision is the current legal interpretation of the 2A. Deny reality all you want. It doesn’t stress me out.

In my opinion the mass surveillance of all citizens heavily infringes on Fourth Amendment rights. “Sneak and Peek” warrants, roving wiretaps, Stingray devices, “trap and trace” warrants, and bulk data collection are some of the ways that we are no longer “secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against…

They do, and they’re wrong on that point. Even free speech isn’t unlimited.

No, the opinions of the dissenting justices are just that. I’m asking you to describe specifically how you can interpret the 2A such that it’s not an individual right. Break it down. I did it: (Show me how YOU interpret it.)

Feel free to point out how the 2A says anything other than I paraphrased. I’ll get my popcorn.

And yet, the ruling stands.

Yes, the National Guard can certainly be considered a militia. Does that mean that the government could never, ever raise any other fighting force from the people in a time of need? Hell no.

I don’t have any love for the NRA, either. I’m just a big fan of the Bill of Rights (what’s left of it, anyway).