Come on, Justice Kennedy.

I am reading the transcript of the Heller argument and believe I could have done a better job than Walter Dellinger at arguing the case.

While it is a right of a people, we cannot take the people as a word which is anything individual in Constitutional terms. The Constitution starts with "We the people" does this mean each and every individual in the US was present during the entire ratification process? Additionally, the Second Amendment talks about the right of the people to bear arms, but the clause only applies to those enrolled in the militia. This means white males between certain ages. Certain professions were exempt from militia service and many people wanted exemption from militia duties. Were their Second Amendment rights violated?

As for the militia, Justice Kennedy, can I say I am a member of the California National Guard, which is your militia unit if I live in California? And can I say this if am a resident alien Briton? I mean the militia allegedly is all the people. Define people! As I said earlier, isn't this a blanket term and not one referring to individuals ("We the people"). Likewise, the unorganised militia argument. Are Californians who are members of an unorganised militia say they belong to the California national guard? Was the 60s draft dodger from Berkeley a member of the Militia, that is the California national Guard because he was technically a member of the "unorganised militia"?

The debates were rather explicit that the concern was the power under Article I, section 8 which Justice Alito brought up. I am wondering if Justice Alito is indeed reading this blog. Although, I think he is living up to the reputation I have heard about him.

And the silliest argument is that I am allowed weapons which are "linear descendants of arms carried in revolutionary times". The Congreve rocket was introduced at about this period, while it is comparable to the Kassam rocket used by the Palestinians, it is a direct ancestor of the modern guided missile. Using this standard means I am indeed allowed to keep tactical nuclear weapons, or even a strategic nuclear missile.

Additionally, saying that the militia who is entitled to weapons is any body other than that organised under Article I, Section 8 means that Al-queda is entitled to weapons, as are any terrorist organisation. Does this make any sense in light of Article III, Section iii?

Yes, the British Bill of rights is far more restrictive, but that is really not a relevance. And while contemporary State Constitutions declarations of rights offer an insight into the Second Amendment, they do have personal rights written into the language which allow for self-defence. Self-defence is not mentioned in the Second Amendment and was not a concern for the founding fathers, the issue of a federal standing army v. a state militia was the concern.

As for the "well regulated" language, this does not mean well trained, it means that the military is under civilian control. The militia is to be subject to government regulation, not an armed mob.

So, while the Revolutionary militia were not subject to the crown, they WERE subject to the Revolutionary authorities. It is not correct to say that the Colonial militias were independent armed bands. Additionally, there were loyalist militia bands during the revolution. There was a fear of standing armies and armed mobs at the time of the revolution. The militia was never outside of authority, whether crown or revolutionary.

Again, to say that bodies which are unregulated are eligible for this right means that Al-queda is entitled to weaponry under the Second Amendment. And the "Well-trained" definitely favours al-Queda as they were trained by the CIA. But, I have always contended that terrorists first face Mecca and praise Allah, then face Independence Hall and praise the founding fathers for allowing them the right to have weaponry in the form of the Second Amendment. The Justices of the Supreme Court may be unwittingly aiding the enemy and violating their oaths if they take the independent right to arms for insurrectionary purposes opinion.

Justice Stevens was bang on in many of his questions. I am sure Wild Bill would be proud that Justice Stevens was his successor.

I am not sure which justice brought up that guns have been regulated. Gura is caught by saying that any regulation is allowed since "reasonable infringement" is not the equivalent of "shall not be infringed". The problem is that saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right means that all gun regulations are subject to scrutiny. This is why the RKBA folk hope for an opinion that will affirm an individual right, then they will begin to "test the waters".

I will reiterate that to find any form of individual right away from militia duty is not within the intent or scope of this amendment.

On the other hand, we can find an individual right which means that al-queda, as a well trained militia, has the right to strategic nuclear weapons, which are the direct descendants of the congreve rocket.

Now, isn't that one of the stupidest things that could happen.