Subsidizing Rights

I noted today the decision by the Supreme Court to extend the Heller v D.C. Second Amendment protections to the states and municipalities. We have the right to bear arms!

I note that the decision was 5-4, and that Justice Thomas preferred a different route to the same end (i.e., the Privileges and Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause). As I mentioned to friends following the Heller decision, given so much 18th and 19th century evidence in favor of the Heller interpretation (read the Scalia opinion (PDF) in the case), how did four justices get it so differently?

The Founding Fathers were very clear that they wanted an armed populace that could defend itself, not only from invasion or crime, but also from the tyranny of government.

So let me now be satirical: Since health care is a right that the government must subsidize for moral reasons, let's fund subsidies so that everyone can exercise their basic right to bear arms! Those that cannot afford arms should be provided a subsidy to purchase and train to use arms. Those who can afford in plenty should be taxed to provide the subsidy. After all, it is not fair if only the rich have arms. Not only that, but everyone should be able to afford the same minimum standard of arms, so that their right is not impaired by poor quality.

Arms for America Now! Nothing less than your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at stake!