David Kaye wrote:
The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution
makes VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the
Supreme Court, and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular
clause actually means.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment
refers to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right
for individual citizens to own guns.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.

Your post is wrong on several levels.

First, the Constitution is completely silent on the subject of
interpretation. This is an aspect of the judiciary system that the court
took on by fiat in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. (You really should keep up.)

I know of no case where SCOTUS specifically referred to the 2nd Amendment as
applying only to a "militia." Had it ever done so, we would be in good shape
inasmuch as the definition of "militia" in 1791 meant "Every able-bodied man
and boy capable of bearing arms in defense." It did NOT mean an organized
fighting body; it meant EVERY citizen capable of fighting (with exceptions,
such as the infirm, women, and slaves).

Now if you assert, as you did, that SCOTUS can define the Constitution any
way it sees fit, you must accept that any notion of "militia", by any
definition, is, today, irrelevant. In the Heller case (2010) the court said
the 2nd Amendment conferred an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. The vote was
9-0.

The following year, in the McDonald case, SCOTUS declared that the 2nd
Amendment was binding on all the states, this is the so-called
"incorporation doctrine." (There are still parts of the Bill of Rights that
are NOT binding on the states.)