Gun Rights Re-affirmed

After a few days of reading headlines such this gem from Reuters, "Top court extends gun rights to states, cities", I decided to go back to the source of the right, the Second Amendment.

It 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.

This amendment is read purposefully a few differing ways depending on one's feelings toward the right to keep and bear arms. The proponents of gun bans and over-regulation of fire arms contend that the amendment's real definition is the right for people in militias to keep and bear arms, but this interpretation denies the context.

Note how the amendment ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why doesn't it state "the right of militia members to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

Why does it assert the word "people" and infer upon people this right?

If the amendment was only giving the right to keep and bear arms to militias it would have been worded that way. Instead the second amendment clearly gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people- where it belongs.

Thus this Supreme Court has finally given the people a right they should have had since the Bill of Rights was written. This was not any sort of extension of rights at all. If nothing else, it was the proper restriction of over-arching government intrusion into a right of the people. Calling the McDonald v. Chicago or the District of Columbia v. Heller two years ago some sort of enlargement of the people's power in America is only correct in that the amendment had been eroded over time by unconstitutional laws. What really happened in those two cases wasn't an extension of rights, but a reclamation of the original intent of the amendment. We the people didn't get anything in this decision that wasn't promised to us long ago.