The founding fathers were very clear (and wise) in the wrint of the Bill or Rights. They were clearing written to state what a gov't cout NOT do. The first affirmed our freedoms and the second made sure we had arms to protect the first. The second ammendent was not so that we could protect against an invading army but so we could protect againt a tyrant invading our liberty's.

Gov't needs to re-read the preamble to the constitution and learn the difference between 'promote' and 'provide'. There is a huge difference and thus in what the government shoud be doing.

Self defense is the bedrock for those of us who choose to exercise our 2nd amendment right. It folds right into the argument that one cannot depend on the "state" for protection, i.e. try living in rural New Mexico, along the Mexican border, where the closest law enforcement may be 1 hour or more away.

Dependence on the state, or coercion to be dependent, is the bed rock of movements such as the Tea Party. Be it medical care or firearms ownership, liberals just don't seem to get it.

Thanks for the great column, Mr. Will.

The 14th amendment is superfluous. As is the 13th. Due process is covered by the 5th amendment, and slavery is covered in the Declaration of Independance. Besides, this is a 2nd amendment question. Arguing the due process clause is just muddying the waters. The 2nd amendment quite clearly states, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It means just what it says. The question of whether it applies to individuals or is restricted to the raising of militias by the states is simply gun control advocates trying to read something into the Constitution that is not there. They like to use that little bit about "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," to mean that it only applies to militias, but that's just smoke and mirrors. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to assure that the people will be armed in the event it becomes necessary for the people to defend and protect our country and our Constitution. The Liberals aren't completely stupid, they know it will be next to impossible to usurp power when the people are armed.

Clearly, it is the "privileges or immunities" clause that incorporates the Bill of Rights against the several States, not the "due process" clause. That this was the intent of John A. Bingham when he wrote it can be deduced from his other writings on the subject. That the SCOTUS has yet to render an opinion affirming such is incredulous.

However, all that having been said, it is my belief that the Second Amendment need not be tied to the Fourteenth at all; it is incorporated against the several states by virtue of its own text. "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period. Amen. End of story. It cannot be more clear than that.

Speaking of guns and the right to bear arms, I keep thinking of what BO said while he was campaigning, that we need a civilian force, better armed and trained than the military. Why do we need such a force? Do we not have the National Guard?

The 2nd Amendment is regularly butchered, but doesn't have to be. The argument of whether it states that an individual has a right to bear arms OR only in the case of an organized militia is deceptive and misleading. First, the amendment isn't looking at an OR, it is looking at an AND. Commas may be a substitute for AND. It is for both: the right of the individual AND the right of a militia shall not be infringed. And second, the government did not arm the militias; the people had their own arms already when the militias were formed (hunting, defense, etc.) A basic purpose is not self defense (though a valuable in itself), but that the citizenry may fulfill it's obligation to overturn the government if it should become ruled by tyrants. Now, do you honestly believe that corrupt leaders want you armed? They don't care that criminals would still have guns. Criminals will never band together to overthrow tyranny.

Would the media sit still while the Cities and States tried to license and regulate printing presses, TV & radio Stations because the Bill of Rights only applies at the Federal level? Similarly, are free speech, free press, jury trial, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, peaceably assembly, or free practice of religion subject to State limitations?

A 14th Amendment defense is a slippery slope that may lead to the statists justifying Federal Law overriding other State Laws and invalidating 9th and 10th amendment rights reserved to we, the people, and to the States, respectively. This is what this argument boils down to. Remember, the Federal Government was established by consent of the sovereign States. No such consent would be forthcoming today if they could see where it has led. The plain language of the 2nd Amendment, the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, should be sufficient, however, as Jefferson feared, even an enumerated right is subject to abuse by the despotic branch.

Just in case someone is still unclear on the militia clause, here is the antecedent in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, and ratified on June 12, 1776.

"XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power." Not a word about hunting, target shooting, plinking, or antique collecting. The militia is composed of the body of the people.

Prior to that, the English Bill of Rights 1689 states, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

I am in agreement with George Will, as usual, that the natural law overrides the 14th Amendment "substantive due process", which may lead to further usurpations of State Law by the Federal Government. It is the traditional understanding of "privileges and immunities" at the time the 14th Amendment was written that should prevail.

"the Second Amendment did not grant a right to keep and bear arms, it "codified a pre-existing right.""

That is the fundamental point typically overlooked in modern discussions of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is set of restrictions on the government, to protect our PRE-EXISTING rights. Rights that existed before the establishment of our government. How long before?

Since the first Man walked the Earth, apparently. The Founders feared that if they crafted a Constitution stating that the government granted certain rights to the People, some later edition of that government would figure a way to take away those rights. If the rights come from men, someday other men could take them away again. They could see only way around that inherent problem: the rights in question were so essential to liberty that they had to be above and beyond the realm of Man -- they had to come to us from God. They were DIVINE RIGHTS.

The idea was genius. If our rights came from God, then if some future government tried to take away those rights, we would have the MORAL AUTHORITY to unseat that government and remove it from power.

Thus nearly all attempts at killing the 2nd amendment have been end-run or backdoor attempts rather than frontal assaults. Even Obamacare, if it somehow passes, will be used to render the 2nd amendment unusable by claiming firearms cost too much in terms of public health care dollars. Those will be deemed much too precious to "waste" on a sport like hunting, shooting and so forth. That attempt too will fail, because Liberals simply do not grasp the concept of the UNALIENABLE RIGHT, the set of Natural or Divine Rights that no writ or entitlement can render invalid.

But unless we continue to do a very good and careful job explaining to everyone and anyone what the concept of Divine Rights means, the concept will lose its power, for it has only that power that our faith grants it. If successive generations are not taught that faith and the reasons for it, the power will fade -- and the greatest accomplishment of Man will fade with it.

A shame that nine justices wouldn't simply say that the second amendment stands alone and in plain language states the the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE infringed.