Foxy,
Indeed the less said the better otherwise you’ll appear to be a bigger fool.

Dear Is Mise,

You claim: "As regards the Second Amendment, it doesn’t confer the right to bear arms to the citizens, it recognises an existing right."

Not it patently didn't. The Supreme Court had to go out of its way to confer that right.

"It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an individual rights theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller12 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals."
http://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/

This was the product of an activist court so why couldn't it have done the same with abortion rights?

Steele,
Because abortion rights are not conferred by the Constitution, just the same as the right to KEEP and BEAR arms is not conferred by it.

Read the Second Amendment then apply to it the construction of the English sentence that you learned in school.

Dear Is Mise,

Keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia was the right.

And just as the right to privacy was part of the Roe vs Wade decision a constitutional right regarding militias was extended to individuals.

Or does it bear repeating yet again?

One of the judges responsible for the overturning of Rowe vs Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas, is reported as having said that, in the future, the Supreme Court might have to overturn other substantive due process precedents, such as anal sex, gay marriage, etc.

That could be fun.

Steele,
If you failed English at school that’s your problem not mine.