Your right, we made that up. In fact, we went back in history, and when they passed the civil rights act we forced them to say that the 14th amendment would give freemen the right to bear arms even though none of them believed that it was an individual right.
This case is about the 14th amendment and whether or not the 14th includes the 2nd when it restricts the states ability to limit citizens rights. When they passed the 14th, the state militias had guns, and they were terrorizing black freemen who did not have guns. The members of congress argued that the 14th amendment would guarantee the right to bear arms. If they believed the 2nd amendment was a right of militias to bear arms, why did they feel the need to fix a state where militias were bearing arms, but the freemen were not?
Nice, finally something on the topic.
I don't agree the '14th includes the 2nd'.
Here's my view:
The 14th doesn't end the right of states to do things differently, within the constitution.
For example, let's say one state makes the speed limit on its state highways 55, and another 65. A citizen in the 55 state can't win in federal court saying the 14th gives him 'equal protection' to drive 65 if his fellow American in another state can. Same with any state-decided issue.
Now, the issue on this is what the second says - not the 14th.
If the 2nd amendment gives a right, then it gives it to all Americans, with the federal constitution overriding any state law, because that's how our system works. Not because the 14th says so - the 14th is irrelevant. If the 2nd *doesn't* give a right, then the right isn't created by the 14th. The logic there would be, "person in Chicago is entitled not to have any gun restriction, because person in Texas doesn't have a restriction, even though the 2nd amendment doesn't provide any protection." That's wrong. You can't give the guy in Chicago a federal right that the guy in Texas doesn't have as a federal right, but only as a state right.
The 14th just plays no role here in my opinion though I haven't read the opinions yet.
If anything, sometimes I suspect the radical right likes to play games with things like the 14th, as if they're punishing the left for freeing the slaves or something.
'You think you liberals can free the slaves, and ban segregation, eh? Well, how do you like your precious little 14th being used to say corporations are people? Ha!'
By the way, I don't know anyone who is saying people don't have the right to the protection of arms - at least rifles - in their home.