Emanations from the penumbra every time.

Well said Ken, 

However I believe that there is something even more dastardly afoot. I think Barnes uses the term "found in the Second Amendment the individual right to a firearm"

Because the Liberal "inteligencia" is trying to keep it from being thought of as "Stare decisis" ( hope I spelled that right), which as you know makes it accepted precedent not subject to change. I think that they believe that if they can get an extra couple babykillers on the court they'll be able to revisit all of this in the future.So predictably, their lapdogs in the press are delicately framing this rather obvious decision as somehow shrouded in a cloak of jurisprudence from whence sprang a novel thought.   

A previous post by sentrydan stated:  "Remember, The Bill of Rights are the rights that have been granted (not guaranteed) to the citizens of The United States of America."

I think a lot of people are under the misconception that The Bill of Rights should be viewed as the rights of the people, as granted by our Constitution.  This faulty logic could imply that if a person's choice of actions is not described in the Bill of Rights, then his choice of action is not granted by the Constitution and therefore subject to legislation.  One need only examine the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitutioin, (the final two most important parts of the Bill of Rights), to fully understand the thought process of the writers of the Bill of Rights.

Ninth Amendment:  The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The ninth amendment says that just because the second amendment states that a person has a right to bear arms, it doesn't mean that he also doesn't have a right to ride a horse.  (So why even have a second amendment?  We'll get to that later.)

The tenth amendment states what I'm sure was very obvious back in the late 18th century:  If it ain't spelled out in the Constitution, then that power is reserved to the States.

Now this brings up back to the man riding the horse argument, and States Rights.  If for some screwy reason, the State of Rhode Island decided that it should be against the law to ride a horse, then they could pass a law, (provided it was allowable under their State Constitution), prohibiting the riding of horses in Rhode Island.  Or the State of Rhode Island might deem it logical that they could leave it up to each county or municipality to decide if it was allowable to ride a horse.  This would be perfectly acceptable under the United States Constitution.

But the writers of the Bill of Rights decided that there were certain things that even the states couldn't screw with.  Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms, (among others).

Our founders new the great thing about States Rights and a limited Federal Government was that people could "vote with their feet".  If Rhode Island said no horse riding, then you could move to Connecticut.  But they didn't trust the States with everything.

The second amendment says clearly that all of the states had a vested interest in remaining free and maintaining the ability to raise a militia.  Reread the second amendment in it's entirety keeping my logic in mind:

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.

So even though it's within a State's right to do almost anything they want to do regarding an individuals freedom of action, that State cannot deny an individual the right to bear arms.

"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012

Another example of subtle liberal bias in the media.  Let us thank our lucky stars that we've had sensible presidents over the past couple decades who appointed SCOTUS judges who know that they are judges, not oligarchs, else we may have seen this true fundamental Constitutional right (the 2nd one following only after the freedoms of religion and speech) unlawfully annihilated. 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

Seems to me that everyone is missing the point here. First, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, which were originally articles, as they appear today. This, of course, was after much heated discussion and hand wringing. The Bill of Rights state what the government can't take away from the citizens.

Second, deals with word usage. Before using a word, look up the definition; examples: Rights (Google on "What is a right?") and enumerate (Google the definition of enumerate). It will be most enlightening.

I will again ask the question. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government guarantees "YOUR RIGHTS"? Remember folks, the Rights set forth in The Bill of Right are already yours. So, why would you need them to be guaranteed?

The Prime Directive of the United States Government is to protect the citizens and to protect the citizen's Rights. Remember, the government works for "We the People", "We the People" don't work for the government. The politicians would have you believe otherwise. Wakeup friends. We are headed for big trouble.

Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.

For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.

Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.