supreme-court-guns-new-york-city-2nd-amendment

The LA Times is just parroting the far-left stance on the 2nd Amendment. And rather than consider the case on its merits (law abiding citizens must not only be able to "keep" arms in their homes, but must also be able to "bear" their arms outside their homes), they make a veiled claim that the justices will also not consider the case on its merits, but rather vote along party lines. The left always ascribes its own tendencies to others. Once again, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The reference to MILLER ignores the simple fact that the 2nd Amendment states and guarantees "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms". It is not at all about a "Militia" having the right to be armed.

If it required an amendment in the Bill of Rights to assure that the armed force known as a "militia" had the right to be armed, then where in the Constitution is it stated that the army Congress is authorized to raise may have armed troops in its ranks?

Of course, no such statement is necessary. It is implicit that any "armed force" -- militia or regular army, be those troops volunteer, conscripted or mercenary, consists of armed men.

So if the "collective right" interpretation is applied, the 2nd Amendment is unique among all those other rights stated in the BOR. The RKBA is only in existence so the citizen may serve the needs of the government. It is not (they would have us believe) a "natural right", having its roots in the universal primary instinct of every living creature -- self-preservation.