"Shall not" too wishy washy for four of the Supremes

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.

Pretty damned clear to anyone who can read English. But apparently not to the four brain-dead Libs on the Supreme Court who use that court to bestow all sorts of extra-constitutional rights on child rapists, minorities, eco-nuts and terrorists. The five dopes in robes also used the court recently to undermine private property rights and restrict political free speech.

Let’s look at a well regulated Militia. We need go no further than the next amendment to understand what the framers were worried about and had in mind when they crafted the Second Amendment. The Third Amendment states:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Unlawful quartering of troops of one the major grievances the framers brought against the king. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy against such goofy government edicts. More important, the Second Amendment is the guarantor of free speech, the right to assemble and every other right contained in the rest of our Constitution.

As for the notion that the right was directed at the militia rather than a general individual right, consider that the constitution mentions “the people” – as in “We the people” – only six times. In every case the framers meant the people of the United States. When they wrote “We the people…” they did not intend for future Supreme Court justices to interpret that language to mean militias, or the congress, or business people, or land owners. They meant for the language to apply to all of the people. So anyone who thinks that the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is somehow directed only at militiamen would have to think that “We the people…” refers only to those who ratified the Constitution.

Last, and this is what really gets me, the words “shall not be infringed” is as clear as it possibly could be. "Shall not" doesn’t mean “may be if a mayor thinks it should be” or “can be if some nut kills a bunch of people on a college campus” or “ought to be if guns look fully automatic even if they are not” or "might be if five dopes in robes think they should be." It means “shall not be infringed.” And that is pretty ironclad.

I’d like to ask the four dissenting dopes this question:

If you wanted to give law abiding citizens of a country an unfettered right to possess and bear arms, how would you write that into the constitution in fewest words possible? I don’t think that they could come up with a better phrasing than that which is already contained in the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.