No, it's not. Just because you don't get your way all the time doesn't mean the system suddenly doesn't work for you.
Ironic that the right used to cry about "activist judges" until they were blue in the face, cried about not rushing in Supreme Court Justice nominations in election years, and how both sides need to find compromise while they were in the minority... only to ignore that rhetoric completely when they got a chance to one-side their unpopular agenda. Fascists love lying~
No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
You... do know all laws were made up out of "thin air" as it were, right? The constitution isn't a tablet passed down from a divine being from a mountain top after smoking some bush. Folks make them up, sometimes by the will of a consensus! In this instance, its the will of a small group of corrupt theocratic fascists representing the dumbest fraction of the populous of a country as well as exploitative wealthy elites who profit on the ignorance of the dumbest fraction of said country in a very un-democratic move.
No, the 2nd amendment contains a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is merely an introduction, i.e. because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state .... then the operative clause says what the amendment actually guarantees, i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You could toss the prefatory clause in the garbage, and the operative clause would still be there as the actual thing the amendment says. The right belongs to "the people," not a militia.
Also "well regulated" in 1770's usage does not mean "subject to lots of regulations." It means in good working order, or properly equipped. A "well regulated" watch or clock was one that was tuned properly to keep good time. A "well regulated militia" is one that doesn't need weapons provided to it when people of a community unite to defend themselves in a time of emergency. That could be the British are coming, or an Indian raid on the frontier, or when a natural disaster such as a hurricane occurs, or if there is looting and rioting. Some of those possibilities are quite unlikely in modern times, but not all. That's why the US Code still identitifies all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 as members of the militia. That's why the "Rooftop Koreans" were able to defend themselves and their families, when LAPD abandoned them in the midst of the Rodney King riots.
That is some impressive mental gymnastics there, comrade! Let's bring up the second amendment now and see how this applies! Bare with me here, I know it is long winded and all, but...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The structure of the singular sentence is a bit awkward nowaday, and the terminology is a bit archaic, but the meaning is quite clear. A Militia is stated as necessary to the security of a free state according to this. A Militia is a group of citizens acting as an ARMY in the place of an actual standing military. It can be made up of anybody, and thusly anybody (who was recognized as a full citizen, sorry women and minorities) can join and they should have the ability to be armed UPON ENTERING INTO A MILITIA AND NOT BEFORE. Following so far? Cool.
Even when this concept was being practiced, militias were wildly insufficient and the first President was quite frustrated with the concept. Militia men were undisciplined, not fit enough to perform military duties adequately, and took too long to rally against an external threat. This lead to all kinds of issues, and by the late 1700s, it fell to the states to "regulate" their militias as their active military force.
Flash forward to 1812 and militias getting rocked lead to the forming of a standing federal ARMY. Militias were phased out and the only government recognized militias became things like the National Guard. The militia act of 1903 does add the option for State Defense Forces, but our absolutely staggering national defense budget for our standing military tells the tale of what the country thinks of militias pretty well at this point.
Where does this all lead to regarding the right to bare arms? Simple... WE ARE NO LONGER ARMING CITIZENS TO PERFORM FEDERAL OR EVEN STATE DUTIES AND DEFENSE AT THE DROP OF A HAT! We have a standing military now, and if you want to join the military in order to secure your right to a firearm, join the club! Us vets LOVE well trained men and women who serve their country! Want a firearm but want to stay in your community? Go and SERVE with the guard, or local law enforcement. What do they all have in common? They are REGULATED in the sense that everyone gets what they realistically need in materials and training for their tasks in service to their country. You don't get all the ammo you can eat, you don't get whatever firearms you want just because you want them, and you're evaluated to see if you're viable to have a firearm and then trained in their use and maintenance and safety.
Jesus, it shouldn't be this hard to understand... if folks in the military and law enforcement have to go through long winded processes to procure their firearms and wield them, why should the second amendment mean anything less for civilians who aren't in a militia or similar service capacity? Also, selective service does not mean you've served nor that you're part of a militia. You're just accepting that you can be tapped to become active.
