A New Challenge to the 2nd Amendment

Yet another article from the Post that caught my eye. The first sentence of the article is all you need to read:

"In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals."

This is an interesting assertion that seemed absolutely ridiculous to me until I read the 2nd Amendment for myself (it's actually only a single sentence). I definitely don't agree that law abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning firearms (though certain types I could argue should be categorically banned) but if I were a lawyer, I might be able to argue that that is just what the amendment says.

In any case, if you consider the broader context the Founding Fathers were living in, I think it is impossible to argue that they did not think private citizens should be allowed to own guns.

Still, I wrote this post because it highlights the need for individual citizens to have a basic familiarity with the foundation that our rights are based on - in this case, the Bill of Rights itself.