The First Amendment recognizes some very basic rights:

• to speak truth to power, personally and through the press;
• to practice our religion - or not - as we choose;
• to associate with others and peaceably assemble together;
• to petition our government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment, which recognizes our right to arm ourselves, means we - as individuals - may legally and practically secure the rights of the First.

Or does it?

The Amendment 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.”

A debate has raged over what these words actually mean. Does the Amendment support an individual right to be armed . . . or only when enlisted in a state militia? This makes a big difference for gun regulation and prohibition.

Now, in the case D.C. v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the issue. Voting 5-4, the court says Yes, the Second Amendment does enshrine an individual right to bear arms.

This makes perfect sense to me. That’s why the framers wrote “right of the people.”

Indeed, this is a wonderful victory for freedom.

It is also welcome news for Washington, D.C., residents who now, whether driving a cab or sitting at home alone, will be able to protect themselves. Which means, in the end, less crime and violence.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Experience counts.

For years I’ve been saying that a person can bring applicable experience to a new job, including a legislative job, and be effective right away. An accountant might get elected and still, as a freshman legislator, look at a state budget and say, “Uh, folks, the government is spending more than it takes in.”

Maybe even a pilot or belly dancer could figure that out.

Incumbent lawmakers also say experience is important. But they’ll add that the only way to get experience relevant to legislation is by accumulating years in a single seat of power. They explain that they can’t learn the job until they’ve been around eight, ten, twenty years or so.

Such confession of incompetence might seem, to most people, more an argument for resigning than for being awarded permanent tenure. Or an argument for term limits. But the self-serving assertions of American incumbents now receive a powerful boost from overseas. From Cuba. From a son of the sainted communist soldier and mass murderer Che Guevera, head of the revolution.

Seems Camilo Guevera has endorsed Raul Castro’s ascendancy to the presidency of Cuba. Fidel, dictator for decades, has been ill. Earlier this year his brother Raul, one of Fidel’s most important flunkies for almost 50 years, took over. Camilo says “it would stupid not to take advantage of all that experience.”

Hey, that’s just what our “experienced” politicians say! Maybe we can send them to help Raul?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Even in his second term as South Carolina’s governor, Mark Sanford continues to flout the political establishment’s typical way of doing things.

A former congressmen who pledged to limit his tenure to three terms max, Sanford was one of a number of self-limiters in the Congress who showed that keeping one’s word does not amount to a political death sentence. You get the idea of his level of commitment from both the title and content of a book he wrote some years ago, The Trust Committed to Me.

Sanford’s fiscal conservatism is a tough sell wherever political incumbents just want to spend, spend, spend taxpayers’money. So the governor doesn’t always use his political clout on behalf of incumbents who share his party affiliation but not his principles.

Sanford recently endorsed the candidacy of Ed Rumsey, who is challenging Bill Sandifer for a South Carolina House seat. This was the third time in recent weeks Sanford had endorsed a GOP challenger over a GOP incumbent. This angers Republicans who prioritize partisanship over sound policy.

Governor Sanford has a different idea. He and Sandifer are at odds over the issue of bloated spending. The governor wants to increase the chances that his vetoes will be upheld, instead of routinely overridden.

Sanford’s politics may stir up a ruckus, but, as he puts it, “seats don’t belong to individual members. It is not a franchise one gets to own.”

That’s common sense - and so’s this! I’m Paul Jacob.

Here’s a story about a government board whose members endlessly dish out taxpayer money. And want endless years in power to keep doing so.

Recently, members of the Santa Clara water board approved steep salary hikes for two of their staffers, making them the highest-paid for their jobs in all of California. For example, the water district attorney will get an 8-percent hike so that she now pulls down $221,720 a year. Well, not exactly. She also got a $12,000 bonus. Then there’s her monthly car allowance: $750.

Yikes. Guess I’m in the wrong line of work.

Interestingly, the board doled out these huge hikes right after refusing to consider a proposal to let voters consider term-limiting board members. These antics are a strong argument for privatizing the water industry, frankly. Short of that, these guys definitely need to be term-limited.

It’s not exactly a secret in Santa Clara that the town’s water board is lavish with its budget. A spate of critical stories made the rounds of California papers after the board’s latest twirl of the financial spigot. As one reporter notes, the board has been “buffeted by charges of excessive spending.”

But you know, there’s buffeting and there’s buffeting. Trust me, any kind of buffeting that leaves incumbents in place to continue their exploitative fun and games is not enough buffeting.

Oh, forget “buffeting”! I’ll take term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Millionaire entrepreneur Norman Braman, an auto dealer, may not be going as far as I’d like in his campaign against a proposed Miami baseball stadium. But so far as he goes, I’m with him all the way.

My question is — Why should any government entity ever be spending taxpayer money on stadiums? There are tickets and promotions and things that raise mucho dinero for franchises. Top players scoop up millions in salary. If big-time sports are not financially viable operations, what could be? And if sometimes owners lack as much money as they might like to spend on a stadium, why should a taxpayer who never watches a game have to pay for it?

Miami-Dade intends to fork over $347 million of taxpayer money plus a $35 million loan. All with no public hearings, no open discussion. No public vote on whether taxpayer money should be splurged on this. Zero due diligence.

So Mr. Braman is suing to expose the shabby politics surrounding the project.

Braman hopes to compel the city to function more responsibly. The evidence so far shows officials have been lazy at best. In one deposition, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez admitted that he had never even seen a financial statement of the Florida Marlins. He never even requested a financial statement.

That’s strike number one. Let’s hope Braman pitches a perfect game.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.