The U.S. Constitution isn't written in an opaque style accessible by only the most learned scholars. Anyone with a sixth grade education can get it. That's why it's so disheartening that four Supreme Court justices found that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" meant that the government can infringe on private citizens keeping and bearing arms. Had five justices arrived at such a dishonest interpretation of the words of the Second Amendment it would have been a whole lot more disheartening. Antonin Scalia today penned the landmark 5-4 decision that overturned the unconstitutional (and counterproductive) Washington, DC gun ban, and reaffirmed the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I dont need these caped clowns to tell me what it means. Hey Brraq,piglosee and the rest of the commie/demo goons, from my cold hands!

Yea thats right im one of those god,country and gun klingie small town pennsylvania boys.

Glad my prediction on the earlier thread turned out to be wrong. And I won't even comment on this from Stevens dissent b/c I am over politics:

"[the amjority] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Frightening that a justice, Stevens, loses sight of the absolute protection of gun rights in the second amendment in his zeal for crime prevention. Almost half of the justices are similarly confused or simply consider the Constitution a legal nuisance to be gotten around like a parent who won't let us smoke cigarettes.

Born in Staten Island, live in AZ, I’m rarely without my trusty Ruger 45 and/or Taurus 9. I’ve never had a desire to commit a crime while carrying a handgun (or my AK-47 for that matter). I did put a guy I caught burglarizing my apartment in the hospital with the old dukes, though. Maybe the “No Self-Defense Zone” advocates would want to have my hands removed. That way they’ll never hurt anyone again.

The decision sucked. We have a right to bear arms that is subject to regulation. Big deal. I note Scalia was not cryptic this time in stating that it was perfectly acceptable for there to be plenty of regulation.

What about "The right of the people..." don't you understand? Do you really think it's a good idea to have our freedoms regulated by a bunch of elitists and bureaucrats? Tagm's right, we don't need these clowns to tell us what our rights are, we can read them in the Constitution. It was basically a good decision, the only thing that sucked about it was that it wasn't unanimous.

Ancient, I posted too quickly. I meant it sucked because it left open the question of "reasonable and rationale regulation" as opposed to laws outlawing the purpose of possession.

The state can outlaw purposes that are, for example, criminal. But if I were in Texas and wanted to open carry, would Scalia find that acceptable? (TX prohibits open or concealed carry without a permit. A permit is denied if, for example, the applicant has defaulted on federal student loan obligations.)

The Supremes protecte the Constitution for a change. This way citizens can SHOOT the same terrorists who must first be Mirandized. Hmmm.