We're about to find out if all the bleating about a Constitutional Republic -- and the entire basis for not choosing to simply take whatever you want from whoever might have it, by whatever means you need to use (up to and including killing them) means anything or not.
The Supreme Court has issued two opinions of note that define quite-clearly that there are limits on what the Government can enact, and those limits in our Constitution are binding.
The first, striking down NY's (and several other) laws requiring you must show an extraordinary reason to have available a weapon for self-defense beyond the confines of your own home was blindingly unconstitutional a century ago when the "law" was enacted. Nonetheless it took a century for the Supremes to tell NY to stick it up their ass. The ruling goes nowhere near far enough in that rights do not require permission slips to exercise, and only when proved to be misused in an assault against another may they be constrained. You have a right to free speech but if you blast your speech through a megaphone at someone else's house at 3:00 AM you can be compelled to stop. The same speech, delivered by the same megaphone, on a busy public sidewalk is perfectly legal and, if you don't like it, that's just tough crap.
The 2nd Amendment is about protecting one's life, liberty and property from those who would take it by violence. Yes, that means if government goons come to take same by violence in direct contravention to your natural rights you can shoot them. If you don't think so then you live in a nation that has no right to exist and thus none of your alleged Constitutional protections exist either because America is here for the precise reason that the colonists shot the British when they came to take their property -- specifically, their guns and ammunition. Whether there is one nutjob with a gun or a hundred of them wearing magic costumes is immaterial; it is the act itself you have the right to defend yourself against irrespective of who's committing it.
The cognitive dissonance within the left and our so-called "ruling class" on this point is ridiculous. Not one politician has a right to obtain or remain in office if they do not uphold this fact, for the entire political structure upon which their office rests is void if, in fact, they do not acknowledge and agree that such a right exists -- and existed before the United States did. Since said right vests in the people and the government never had it there is no capacity to lawfully interfere with same since to grant or withhold something you must first have rightful possession of it.
That's the beginning and end of it.
The 6-3 Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe (and which should not be a surprise given it was leaked in a puerile and outrageous attempt to derail same) likewise is not what the left says it is, nor is it what the right says it is. While Roe certainly did attempt to draw upon an alleged right to privacy and bodily autonomy we just spent the last two years destroying both and not one single government official was hanged, shot, run out of town or set on fire for doing it, so those of you who argue that is the premise on which Roe rested and that you "respect" such can fuck off. Indeed the same diffuse "public benefit" argument is more applicable to an unborn child in that without children there is no society at all, yet just as with so-called "public health" arguments the benefit to any particular person is diffuse and impossible to prove in advance. The fact that the so-called left didn't immediately sack every political agency and politician who locked down the country, enforced mask mandates and passed or supported jab requirements proved that they have no principles behind their position at all and never did -- it was and is baseless and indefensible authoritarian crap that drove all of it. I was once a fairly staunch defender of the original split in Roe, but the last two years have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that there never was an honest position taken on the other side.
In point of fact those on the left in regard to this issue are no better than the British soldiers who tried to confiscate guns at Concord and thus have no right to any of the Constitution's protections themselves since they have explicitly repudiated said Constitution upon which the entirety of their claim to office and alleged "power", such as it is, rests.
Indeed all the caterwauling about "assigned sex at birth" (coming from these same people, incidentally) is just more bullshit piled upon bullshit. We know, with absolute certainty and have since microscopes were invented when life begins and when the immutable characteristics of said life become fixed. That event occurs in every sexually-reproducing organism down to the lowliest sexed plant when the male and female gametes fuse and there is not a thing you can do beyond that instant in time to change it.
Thus what isn't subject to debate by any honest person is when distinct life exists. What is subject to debate is when and under what circumstances does life acquire Constitutional protection? You can put down your dog, cat, cow or chicken irrespective of its state of birth or age. None of that matters and other than by unreasonable cruelty there is no crime involved in killing any of them. We assign by dint of political process superior and in fact distinct and unique rights to the species of animal called Homo Sapiens. The species rhesus macaque, on the other hand, despite being both intelligent and a mammal, and thus quite close to Homo Sapiens from a biological perspective, can be killed and medically experimented on through any point in its existence from conception forward without criminal consequence. Mus musculus can be fed to your pet snake while alive, or you can let your cat play with (and eat) one and all is well.
The premise that one person has the right to kill another distinct Homo Sapiens entity that has not yet been born (the 14th Amendment specifically attaches said protections at birth) yet any other person who does so is charged with murder (if intended) or manslaughter (if through negligence) and prosecuted is a political question. Indeed our modern society has wildly divergent views on this; in some jurisdictions a woman who is pregnant and smokes meth, resulting in harm to or death of the fetus can be criminally charged while in others she will not be. That is a political debate, not one of fact, since it is fact that at the moment of conception a distinct Homo Sapiens entity exists and the actual debate thus isn't about life -- it is about when and under what circumstances said life acquires the pre-government rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all three of which are protected and allegedly recognized (but not granted) by the Constitution and, under its present language (14th Amendment again), said attachment occurs at birth.
The entire premise of the 50 States, rather than one country with no division of power is that serious questions of this sort frequently do not have fact-based answers. They have political answers, and diversity of political opinion and expression means that over time the better proposed answers will show superior outcomes while the lesser ones will show worse outcomes, which we can then analyze and refine political policies around.
Further, because our Constitution prohibits strictures on where you can travel and live within the 50 states those locales will, over time, either gain or lose people and political influence. Yes, it takes a long time. Go ask Lori Lightfoot how she likes the departure of multiple major corporations along with their employment and tax base from Chicago across the last few years. Did that happen overnight? No, it took decades and plenty of people with money who like the culture and such in said cities first tried to fix it through the political process. It was only when that process was exhausted and the conclusion was reached that further attempts were pointless that the moves were made.
Such as it is now with Roe. Those who want easy and immediate access to abortions and consider it a lifestyle issue worth residence can and should move to a state or town that will protect same. There are several where the political winds hold that abortion, whether early on or all the way up to the moment of birth, is indeed something they wish to consider the sole domain of the woman in question. If you hold that view then move to one of those places; U-Haul is ready when you are.
If you hold the opposite view -- that being Homo Sapiens confers protection from the moment of distinct life then move somewhere that has or will restrict or even ban abortion.
That is actual choice; those who believe they have a right to impose their views on others by force are not for choice at all. They're for sticking a gun in your face and demanding you do what they want exactly as they did with Covid. Witness the threats to burn or even kill from the left over this decision.
In a civilized society an act in furtherance of same is properly called felony assault and it confers upon the person assaulted the right to stop the assailant immediately, including through the use of deadly force.
No, the Supremes have not restored the Constitution as many on the right will claim.
But they did take a couple of the torn pieces of said Constitution that have been used as birdcage liner for decades and taped them back together.
There is much more to be restored and no guarantee our system of government will do so but this is, objectively, progress.