This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in our history, certainly the worst in my lifetime. The blatant ideology expressed by the four conservative members is mind numbing, and Thomas is, frankly, a waste of bench space.

Will conservatives be raising cries of judicial activism over this one? Oh, right, I forgot, it's only judicial activism if you disagree with the ruling.

But you fail to point out where the Scalia and the majority are wrong. Try reading the the Second Amendment and then share your thoughts on the meaning. Most reputable legal scholars and historians have come to the conclusion that the amendment confers a general right to keep and bear arms, and is not limited to "militias" (which at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights consisted of all able-bodied adult males.)

Heller should have been a 9-0 decision.

"But you fail to point out where the Scalia and the majority are wrong."

It's not his duty. Justice Stevens did that.

"Try reading the the Second Amendment and then share your thoughts on the meaning."

Take your own advice, guy. (Of course, you have as much right, under the 1st Am., to make assertions unsuported by arguement as opus512 - or me - but it's a bit hypocritical to cite the mote in his eye and ignore the beam in yours.)

"Most reputable legal scholars and historians have come to the conclusion..."

Riiiight - because if a legal scholar or historian doesn't agree with you or Scalia, he's not "reputable". Ever hear of "begging the question"? (And if four justices of the Supreme court can't be considered legal scholars, what is your definition of the term?)

"Heller should have been a 9-0 decision."

Yeah - the other way. Miller should have been upheld. But that's my assertion....

YOU GOT IT!! WHY SHOULD WE RESPECT WHAT THE CONSTITUITON SAYS.....YOU ARE AN IDIOT. CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS RISEN SINCE THE BAN. YOU WANT TO BE A SOCIALIST, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY PLEASE.

COURT ONLY "INTERPRETS" LAW...SHOULD NOT MAKE THE LAW...SO AGAIN, YOU AND OBAMA, PLEASE LEAVE THE BEST COUNTRY EVER CREATED...

<link>

INSERT SOME BRAIN CELLS AND UNDERSTAND THE 2ND AMMENDMENT AND WE HAVE RIGHTS....LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!

Don't try debate if even capitalization is beyond your skills, kid.

Stevens wore his ass for a hat on this decision.There is plenty of evidence to support the majority decision

Why are all the other enumerated Rights for individuals except that stated in The Second Amendment?

I'm no fan of Scalia but he's called this one consistent with the Founder's intent and expressed meaning.

Hunting and The National Guard have NOTHING to do with the matter.

Feinstein,Lautenberg,Schumer,B­loomberg (anti-gun in Israel?),Daley,Fenty,McCarthy (all surrounded by armed bodyguards) ALL have buttocks for chapeaus and ALL subscribe to "I'm OK, you're all infantle and fucked up."

They LOSE !

Obama! Take notice.

JR22:

But you fail to point out where the Scalia and the majority are wrong. Try reading the the Second Amendment and then share your thoughts on the meaning. Most reputable legal scholars and historians have come to the conclusion that the amendment confers a general right to keep and bear arms, and is not limited to "militias" (which at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights consisted of all able-bodied adult males.)

Heller should have been a 9-0 decision.

I have read the 2nd Amendment, and it's wording should be clear to all but the most ignorant. The opening line of the amendment says it all, it lays the basis for the entire amendment;

A well regulated militia.....

Many conservatives like to pretend they're so called 'constructionists,' that they think the founding fathers wrote the Constitution in stone, never to be altered, and always to be interpreted with the framers original intent in mind. Adhering to that code, one simply can not read more into the amendment than regards to state militias.

If the right to bear arms was the singular point of the amendment as they claim, then it would have started with that. It would have read more like;

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, being as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

That's not how they wrote it. So the question then becomes, why did they choose the wording they did? Was it just willy nilly? Did they just write it off the cuff? Was there no discussion as to the wording or it's meaning? Was there no reason at all they worded it the way they did?

You have the final vote right, just backwards. It's an obvious reading of intent, one conservatives miss willingly and purposely.

jl453:

YOU GOT IT!! WHY SHOULD WE RESPECT WHAT THE CONSTITUITON SAYS.....YOU ARE AN IDIOT. CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS RISEN SINCE THE BAN. YOU WANT TO BE A SOCIALIST, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY PLEASE.

COURT ONLY "INTERPRETS" LAW...SHOULD NOT MAKE THE LAW...SO AGAIN, YOU AND OBAMA, PLEASE LEAVE THE BEST COUNTRY EVER CREATED...

<link>

What are you, an idiot? What the hell do you think interpretation of law entails? Was ending slavery creating a new law? Was a womans right to vote creating law where none existed? Are you saying that every single civil rights law ever passed is a bogus, judicial created law that never existed in the Constitution?

Are you even saying anything?

Lash LaRue:

Stevens wore his ass for a hat on this decision.There is plenty of evidence to support the majority decision

Why are all the other enumerated Rights for individuals except that stated in The Second Amendment?

I'm no fan of Scalia but he's called this one consistent with the Founder's intent and expressed meaning.

Hunting and The National Guard have NOTHING to do with the matter.

You're right, there is evidence to supoport the majority decision, they just didn't use any of it. Instead they made some up based on convenience as clearly shown in the article. Why bother with all that crap, and please, you have to admit Scalia's rant on conveneience was judicial claptrap, why did he bother with any of that if the wording and thus ruling was so obvious from the start?

Why did the authors start with the wording 'a well regulated militia...'? Just answer me that, why did they choose to word it the way they did?

And you're right, hunting was not a consideration at the time because hunting was a way of life for almost every single person in the country to be at the time. Hunting was the norm, by far thye norm, it was simply taken for granted that people needed to hunt. There was no Wal-Mart and Super K-Marts in the New World, were there?

There was also no National Gaurd, which is why they created the well regulated militias line!

How could the amendment concern the National Guard when there was no National Guard at the time? How could that even be a consideration? The National Guard of the time were the welll regulated militias.

There are reams of paper where the writers of the Bill of Rights discuss their reasoning behind the Second Amendment. And they all say the same thing. The people should be armed. I don't know why people who are so opposed to the 2A don't believe that. If you wonder what they were thinking, it's easy to find. Apparently it's hard to find a quote saying "we don't want the people to have guns, so we're writing this like this". Probably a reason for that, but I'd like to see one. Or you can keep ignoring the actual writings, and pretend a secret paper exists supporting an unarmed populace exists.

BlueHue:

Don't try debate if even capitalization is beyond your skills, kid.

Name-calling? Now there's an airtight legal argument. Try looking beyond Netiquette and read the content of his post. the Supreme Court upheld the constitution, pure and simple.

Somebody PLEASE make a legal argument here, I've not seen one yet.

jl453:

What are you, an idiot? What the hell do you think interpretation of law entails? Was ending slavery creating a new law? Was a womans right to vote creating law where none existed? Are you saying that every single civil rights law ever passed is a bogus, judicial created law that never existed in the Constitution?

Are you even saying anything?

Yes, he's saying that the Supreme Court upheld existing law. But leave it a gun control advocate to call names and demonize, rather than actually admit that the Bill of Rights are enumerated to individuals.

Until a federal ban is passed on gun rights, the federal government is obligated to protect those rights. It is a right given to the people on an individual basis, and the federal government is charged to uphold it until a federal amendment stating otherwise is written into federal law.

So much vitriol only smacks of irrational, emotional bias. Not legal argument.

And for your information, the Supreme Court did not create the right to vote for Women, nor the Civil Rights act. Both were acts of legislation and subsequent ratification, not judicial re-interpetation.

opus512 wrote the following

Why did the authors start with the wording 'a well regulated militia...'? Just answer me that, why did they choose to word it the way they did?

Here’s the way I have always interpreted this line. It’s the only way it makes since to me based on the way people wrote at the time; which, by the way, bears little resemblance to how we write now.

Because militias historically become the strong-arm armies of despots. The way you "well regulate" a militia is to have an equally armed populace. This way the people can regulate a militia gone bad. Remember that at the time a Militia was in reality a small personal army, which could be sponsored by either a political group or an individual.

Our founding fathers were often pretty smart guys who IMO would have likely appreciated the fact that the various militias played a significant role in defeating the Brits but also understood their inherent dangers if not tied to a common cause. Hence the need to well regulate the militia. Remember, it was a bunch of Individuals with guns who banded together to regulate a British army.

It turns upon definitions and interpretation. What is "the Militia"? What defines "well regulated"?

I, and plenty of company, see "the Militia" as an emergency resource drawn from the "well" of the People, capable,ready and equipped for civil emergency. It, most certainly, is not another armed force of the Federal Government, subject to call up and deployment at the Federal will. Witness the use and abuse of National Guard forces in The Middle East, as in the Louisiana Guard not being in Louisiana when they would have been better employed post-Katrina. The scapegoats for Abu Graib weren't Regular Army either.

Believe it or not, there is PLENTY of "regulation" of weapons; Some of it reasonable,much of it unreasonable and based on ignorance,fear,weakness and feelings.

Visit Switzerland sometime. You may get to see a 20-something long haired citizen either going to or returning from training, at an airport, carrying his or her pack and a REAL assault rifle. It's the same one they keep at home with 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Ever hear of a Swiss or Israeli airliner being hijacked? No such thing as a gun free zone ( killing field for psychos ) in those countries.

Citizens are armed. Subjects are disarmed.