Rope, Tree, SCOTUS. Some assembly required.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." [emphasis added]

Ahem:

"Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Does that sound fucking familiar, you half-bald fuckstick?

Rights, all rights, belong to me, they are neither granted nor given, they are mine, not yours, and the gummint has absolutely no right to think they can take away or even limit those rights.

Madison acknowledged a major reason for some of the discontent with the Constitution as written: "I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary."

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, {so although certain rights are enumerated, and therefore guaranteed against encroachment by the government, lack of inclusion of other rights does not mean the government may encroach upon them.--Chuck} and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

The first 10 amendments list individual rights--they outline rights that the founders felt so important that the government had to be specifically directed not to fuck with these rights. These rights belong to every citizen, and Keeping and Bearing arms is a direct part of that. The verbiage may say "as part of a well-regulated militia" but does not say the average citizen has to be an active participant, but rather able to be mobilized for the common defense of the country, state, town, or home.

The supremes exist to interpret the constitution as the founders meant it, and to validate all laws passed by the congress to ensure they are within the limits and constraints of the constitution. Any member of the supreme court who cannot remember that the founding principle of our nation is that people have inalienable rights needs to be hauled out onto the mall, and strung by his genitals to the top of the Jefferson Rotunda until he be dead, dead, dead.

His carcass should them be moved to the top of the Washington monument, to be carried around by carrion birds until no traces remain.

There is simply no right guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution guarantees that the government, be it the President, Congress, or even the "Justices for Life" in the supreme court can encroach upon, infringe upon, or otherwise limit my rights. The second amendment guarantees that the government cannot limit or otherwise take away the one thing that gives me the means to limit tyranny--whatever form it takes.

It is my duty as a citizen, as an Army officer and defender of the constitution, and my right, a right that is mine by the simple nature of my existence, which the good "justice"thinks he has the ability and authority to limit.

If the government tries to disarm me, or passes any law saying that I am no allowed to own, possess, or otherwise operate a firearm, I will disobey. I guarantee that any person who attemps to enforce any such law will have a gun, which clearly demonstrates a tyranny of government giving itself rights it will not confer to its citizens. That is 180 degrees off true from what 10,623 of my countrymen sacrifices life or limb to protect during the revolution. If the gummint is unable or unwilling to police itself of these nitwits who think we, the people exist to support them and their Utopian ideals, and the cost of our liberties, then sadly it is time for the streets of our nations capital to once again flow with the blood of patriots, scoundrels, and tyrants.

--Chuck