You do bring up a very interesting point about the 1st Amendment as well. Have you heard of the Free Speech Zones?

A interesting spin on the 1st Amendment if you ask me

The full text of Second Amendment reads “[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.” Justic Scalia spent the first third (nearly 20 pages) of his opinion describing why the first part of the text — the reference to the Militia — has no bearing on the right to bear arms. In my opinion, Justice Scalia conveniently overlooks the notion that our forefathers – regardless of how insightful and progressive they may have been – did not envision a society in which handguns were kept in the home for purely self-defense purposes. To the contrary, our constitution’s framers were explicitly concerned with the ability of the states to maintain power vis-à-vis the federal government when they drafted the Bill of Rights.

I, too, was shocked to learn the government can curtail individual civil liberties (at least under our current constitutional law doctrine.) Take, for example, the First Amendment’s right to free speech. In general we are all free to say whatever the heck we want whenever the heck we want to say it. However, it is NOT okay to yell fire in a crowded theater or to use words to insight a violent riot.

The same principles, I believe, apply to the Second Amendment. Do we have a right to bear arms? Certainly, under certain, well-regulated conditions.

(The “rational” and “legitimate” language is comes from the Court’s analysis of other civil liberties cases — but, save Breyer’s dissent, is hard to find in this one.)

I’m not a lawyer, so I certainly am no expert; however, I am curious about Justice Breyer’s position.

In my own personal opinion, it seems that the portion of the text from the 2nd Amendment, seems pretty clear in my mind: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

I also find it hard to accept (if I am understanding you correctly), that the government is free to reduce any personal right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights or Constitution, on the basis of a “rational relationship” to a “legitimate governmental purpose”.

Who decides what is rational or legitimate? The government? I guess my point is, if we allow judges to see the clear meaning of our Constitutional rights and go the other direction, because of certain conditions at the time, or a political point of view, it won’t be long before they could simply dismiss the entire document.

In addition, It seems to me, that based on everything I have read, the Supreme Court are to uphold the Constitution, not belittle the meaning of it by putting context parameters on segments of the Bill of Rights or original Constitution for any reason.

Abraham Lincoln said:
“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

Any thoughts on this? Again, I’m not a attorney, so my argument, perhaps, is very poor, but I would like to understand this point of view more.