D.C. vs Heller

The issue I believe is this. The left looks at the beginning of the amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." using dictionaries form the time, well regulated meant well trained or well drilled. The gun-control activists forget the second part about "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The people are individual persons, thus an individual right. (Just like the other 9 amendments)

Basically breaking it down, the people are what the militia is comprised of. Back in 1776 the militia was an average citizen (individual) using private firearms, but formed together when needed to fight. George Mason was very clear about this in the federalist papers. A militia is a collective group, but the rights of the people (average citizen) who form that group have the right to own private firearms for self defense or worse yet, government tyranny. The militia is the people, which are individual persons.

Banning guns in DC is unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment is about self defense from criminals, the government and foreign invasion. It's not about state rights, just like free speech isn't just for the government to control. Not allowing guns is an infringement, just like if D.C. enacted a no-free speech zone. Each individual citizen has the right to speak freely, practice religion, the press, and is free from illegal search and seizure. The state has no control over these other freedoms... guns are no different.

I think I might go out and celebrate by open carrying a new gun :)