Yesterday the United States Supreme Court defended our citizens' civil rights again!
In the case of District of Columbia vs Heller, the Court confirmed that we still have the individual right to keep and bear arms as set forth in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A full copy of the Opinion (link below) may take us a while to read and digest, but the short answer is... our bulworks of freedom have withstood another assault from those who would erode our civil rights.
One perspective on the concept of "militia" that I have not yet seen addressed in my skim of the Opinion, is that it is important to remember when conducting this analysis that The United States was formed and initially defended by individuals with their own personal firearms who assembled and dared to stand up against the previous government. The Constitution clearly states that we are at least to maintain that. How are we to maintain this ability if we change the meaning of "militia" to now mean the army of the government? The armed forces of These United States (which I fully support) are yet still the standing army of the government that the "militia" could be called upon to oppose, should the federal government continue to try to erode our individual and states' rights.
Some say that the National Guard is the new militia. I suggest to you that the evolution of the National Guard has taken it many strides from the constitutional concept of the militia. How different really is the National Guard from the standing federal army? I say it is not so different, when a stroke of the pen from the President can nationalize and mobilize the National Guard.
But alas, the horse is dead. The result of the Decision is correct. And we can still yet live in a free America.