How about the bombs?
I think we need to review the absurdity of that statement.
It’s very difficult to resolve the competing interests of our Constitutional system. It’s not a perfect document, yet it does contain the means of it’s own modification. At the same time we don’t want it to be amended by every whim of the legislature, that would probably result in the steady erosion of all rights. We kick the can down the road often by relying on Supreme Court interpretations to define the law, or at least it’s practice. But nothing is set in stone and courts can eventually revisit any issue. Legislatures create laws that may contradict the Constitution, but until those are challenged in the Supreme Court they remain in effect.
So in the end we live in a limbo where the law is never set in stone, always subject to process and interpretation, and ever malleable. Yesterday the First Amendment was disregarded and under frequent attack. Today the Second Amendment is center of debate. Tomorrow it will be another one. I like this system just the way it is.
The Bill of Rights itself treats the Second Amendment as an inferior right. It is the sole amendment with a qualification. No other right in the Bill of Rights is qualified. By its own words, the Second Amendment is far more limited than the other amendments. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that government troops were adequately armed, not to give every individual an unlimited right to own weapons regardless of any other policy consideration.
Nonsense! While you do need a license to fly it, you don’t need one to own it.
Add to that every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45. 10 USC 311.
To be fair, the no fly list is a running clusterfuck and should never have existed in the first place. And, really, if we let your average Floridian buy guns, I don’t see why we should mistrust foreign nationals any more than that. 
This has been done to death. If we want to talk about the founders’ intent, clearly they were not talking about government troops, because there weren’t any. And if they’d only meant to provide for one, they wouldn’t have written “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” They were quite capable of drawing a distinction between the state and the citizens in the language of the Constitution; these were not stupid or careless men.
If you want to talk about intent, and if you’re putting on the goggles of an originalist, you might also note that nowhere in the Constitution is power granted to the federal government to regulate arms. All federal gun laws (and federal drug laws, and quite a few others besides) ought to be struck down if you take this view – the matter should simply be left to the states.
But what really matters is jurisprudence, and American jurisprudence has heretofore ruled what the grammar of the language and the conventions of the time dictated: that the second amendment mentioned a right of individuals, and that the prefatory explanation justified but did not limit that right. However, it has also held that the right is not absolute, and may be subject to reasonable regulation falling short of proscription, whatever that may be.
So can we stop with “the second amendment only applies to the national guard!” already? It’s a tired argument, long since put to rest.
As the Supreme Court has affirmed, it is not qualified.
By a 5-4 vote of an activist redneck Court. This was the Dred Scott decision of our times and will be overturned as the right wing whackjobs are replaced by liberal intellectuals by the steady stream of Democratic presidents.
I would think something like Bowers would fall more under this rubric, as it was in fact a case that denied human rights to a class of people rather than one that affirmed a civil liberty plainly stated in the text, but I guess I can only stand in awe at the utter unhinging that the topic of guns seems to elicit in some Democrats.
I agree, it’s ridiculous to debate this completely incorrect premise as if it was valid. The first amendment isnt remotely absolute, so if anything the question should be why cant the 2nd amendment be limited as easily as the 1st amendment has been over the years.
Even that’s dishonest though. You can’t own large machine guns. You can’t own nuclear bombs. We already have extreme limits on what arms we have the right to keep and bear, just like we have limits on our free speech. It’s ridiculous to say, “ok, but starting with what’s left the right is completely absolute.”
At worst, they clarified an ambiguity in the law by coming down on a side you disagree with. They did this by way of issuing a ruling in a case that was brought before them by the normal functioning of the legal apparatus. Can’t we leave baseless cries of “activism!” to the frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives?