Only Amendment 2b, about the “right to bear arms,” came into play in this case, as in so many others. Amendment 2a, which established the purpose for bearing arms, authorizing a “well-regulated militia,” has been completely ignored, even in the highest court of the land. “Well-regulated” implies well-trained, under the authority of a command-and-control structure, sworn to duty by governmental action. Not any of that describes the presence, much less the twice-fatal actions of an out-of-state teenager bearing a military-style weapon he obtained illegally. At the very least, he should have been found guilty under the least onerous of the charges, reckless endangerment. Or else others will feel authorized to do as he did. A terrible thought.