when is said there is no "right to privacy" in a previous post, i meant only that it is not specifically delineated and that is the originalist argument those three justices will no doubt write about. one can quibble whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures on one's person confers a general right to be able to do whatever one wants with one's body wherever one wants to do it. not to mention whether it means you have the right to kill the other human body growing inside you.
the right to bear arms is clearly stated in the constitution, the question there has to do with the interpretation of the introductory clause. and despite what you will read here, it is far from clear that the clause has a limiting purpose on the right. 18th century laws were written with such clauses a lot and not all of them were meant to limit the laws following the introductory sentences.
and - not to get off on a tangent here - but the constitution was written in the late 1700s. in a functioning democracy, it would probably have been rewritten by now to reflect more modern ideas.