[PubliusMM]

“As for the insurrectionary purpose of the Second Amendment, the Court could either repudiate it explicitly or pass over it in silence, consigning it to irrelevance.”

And, that would be a mistake, as well. As noted earlier in the article, the Declaration of Independence lists primary rights as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the article’s author notes that ‘life’ is placed first.
Recognizing, then, that self defense, as a means of self preservation, is recognized as a primary right, it would be wrong to attempt to set parameters for it’s achievement, short of impinging on the freedoms of another.
Self defense is often assumed to mean defense of one’s self from crime and criminals. I would submit that protection from one’s own government is equally as important, although often overlooked.
Even this article’s author hints that such self defense could, today, be unnecessary. I beg to differ.
Witness a federal government run amok; spending our money like drunken sailors on shore leave; creating new ‘rights’ from whole cloth where none existed in the past; establishing a multi-culti appeasement environment that denegrates the true history of this grand experiment as steeped in social and moral wrongs that bear fruit even today.
To many of us, it appears that we are heading down a wrong path, and the means to correct the course are slipping further and further from our grasp. It may well be that armed insurrection will play a role in the future of America. For many uf us, the ‘insurrectionary purpose of the Second Amendment’ is the primary reason for the Second Amendment.

To be right and proper, the SCOTUS should find the DC gun ban unconstitutional while confirming the individual right to keep and bear arms without restriction.

[neverdem]

To be right and proper, the SCOTUS should find the DC gun ban unconstitutional while confirming the individual right to keep and bear arms without restriction.

I'm hoping that happens too, but I'm not certain that Kennedy will resist the temptation to inject some contortion of English and logic. He said, "Miller may be deficient." Say a prayer for Kennedy.

PDF link to the oral argument: JUSTICE KENNEDY: It seems to me that Miller, as we're discussing it now, and the whole idea that the militia clause has a major effect in interpreting the operative clause is both overinclusive and underinclusive. I would have to agree with Justice Ginsburg that a machine gun is probably more related to the militia now than a pistol is. But that -- that seems to me to be allowing the militia clause to make no sense out of the operative clause in present-day circumstances.MR. GURA: Your Honor, even within the militia understanding, the understanding of the militia was always that people would bring whatever they had with them in civilian life. So if a machine gun, even though it may be a wonderful -- JUSTICE KENNEDY: My point is: Why is that of any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today? MR. GURA: It's only of relevance if the Court wishes to continue reading the militia clause as informing the type of weapon which is protected. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, you're being faithful to Miller. I suggest that Miller may be deficient.MR. GURA: I agree with Your Honor, and certainly in our brief we suggest that the militia emphasis of Miller is not useful as a limiting principle to the type of arms that may be -- that may be permitted. Because, on the one hand, there's a great deal of weaponry that might be wonderful for military duty but is not appropriate for common civilian use, which would not be protected even under the Miller test's first prong. And, on the other hand, everything that civilians today might wish to have in ordinary common use -- handguns, rifles, and shotguns -- are militarily useful weapons. So we de-emphasize the military aspects of Miller as being ultimately not very useful guidance for courts. And the better guidance would be to emphasize the commonsense rule that I think judges would have really no trouble applying, and we do this all the time in constitutional law: To simply make a decision as to whether or not whichever arm comes up at issue is an arm of the kind that you could really reasonably expect civilians to have.

Pages 62 - 63

[Ancesthntr]

“As for the insurrectionary purpose of the Second Amendment, the Court could either repudiate it explicitly or pass over it in silence, consigning it to irrelevance.”

And, that would be a mistake, as well. As noted earlier in the article, the Declaration of Independence lists primary rights as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even the article’s author notes that ‘life’ is placed first.

The author ignores that giant elephant in the room: The entire Declaration was about establishing the fact that the insurrection that was about to begin was legal and grounded in fundamental morality. How can anyone decouple the idea of revolting against a tyranny from the 2nd Amendment, when the very document asserting our liberty was ABOUT revolt against a tyranny???