You are correct Sir! The Second Amendment was always read to mean that citizens had a right to bear arms. It was only after the looney liberal lemmings of the licentious left began reading their nonsense into it that its clear meaning became obtuse. The Supreme Court finally cleared up for the nit wit ban guns crowd that we on the right knew all along. The left is totally devoid of any semblance of integrity.
You’re absolutely correct. And if you’ll look into the history of England, the right to bear arms (AND FOR SELF-DEFENSE) is a very old one—one the colonists absolutely would have believed in.
One of the first acts of Parliament following the accession of William and Mary to the throne of England as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was to restore the old constitution with its provision that every man may arm for self-defense. Yes, with restrictions, but fundamental to this was the right to self-defense.
What Chimerinsky would have us believe is that the colonists and the founding fathers would actually limit the right to bear arms from what they had known in England after the British had attempted to seize their individual liberties and their weapons. The idea is wholly preposterous.
And I’ll note our dear Chimerinsky refers to these judges as advocates of “judicial restraint.” I’ll note that if he referred to them as what they are more commonly known as—orginalists—it wholly demolishes his argument and turns the arguments all against him.