Actually, the truth about the 2nd Amendment is that its framers probably had an even more (now) right-wing intent than is discussed by the court. The right to keep and bear arms is about the individual right to limit the power of one's government. The "militia" is the body of citizenry who are intended to remain empowered to revolt if necessary and install a new government. Using the militia as a prefatory statement makes this intent clear. However, this is a little too edgy for even the most die-hard conservatives because such an interpretation would be seen as pro-terrorist. Therefore, the Supreme Court actually took the middle ground by relegating the "militia" statement to an empty phrase and holding that government simply could not prohibit individuals from owning all handguns.

Yes, even the most hardcore Republicans are hesitant to admit that the 2nd amendment is really about the power of the people to overthrow the government and install a new one! Scary, but true! The Department of Homeland Security wouldn't like that right being expressed. It's not the 2nd's only purpose, but it's the core purpose, all the talk about hunting and trap and skeet, and even personal defense, was not even on the radar screens of the framers when the 2nd was added. To the men of that era, the rights of the people to bear firearms for hunting and defense was so obvious that they didn't bother to enumerate them.

So you think the 2nd Am. was intendened to superscede the part of the Constitution that empowers Congress "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;", or is there something about suppressing insurrections you can't or won't understand?

Armed revolution was a radical pipe-dream in the 60's. It still is.

While they was an element of reality in personal arms offering a limit on despotic government in the mid-eighteenth century, that has not been the case since the end of the Civil War -- at least. It is a silly notion to think that a bunch of citizens can overthrow the government merely because they happen to have some guns.

The militia was the preferred means of national defense at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Standing armies were far more feared than an armed populace. The issue of the militia is simply that, in order to have an effective militia, people must be intimately familiar with and possess arms. To put restraints on the people's ownership of arms would be to put restraints on the militia the government desired to substitute for a standing army.

Stevens's dissent is a cynical manipulation of both law and history in an attempt to justify a preconceived position on the Second Amendment rights. Breyer's dissent is far more worrisome than Stevens's. I was disappointed that Breyer chose not to join the majority, and I am more disappointed in the rationale of his dissent. I expected nothing from Souter, and less from Ginsburg.

The narrowness of the majority will mean that this debate continues. While it is a clear statement of an individual right, the police power of the states will still assert compelling public interests in gun control statutes that range from the silly to the ludicrous in their efforts to diminish the effect of this ruling. It is an advance over Miller, but not as much an advance as needed.

The debate will continue.

BlueHue:

Armed revolution was a radical pipe-dream in the 60's. It still is.

It was also the means by which modern Democracy was formed and preserved. History extends beyond the baby-boomers (much to their surprise)

regarding your first paragraph, look at the WWII Warsaw ghettos where small groups of armed Jews held off the Nazis for some time. If EVERY adult American was armed and willing to fight the government, do you REALLY think the army would win?

Really?

There are (approx) 1,400,000 active duty soldiers, and the same in the reserves right now, compared to about 109,000,000 U.S. citizens *fit for military service* age 18-49 in the United States .(link <link>

No, if the whole (or a large part) of the populace was armed AND willing to fight and die for their cause, they could very well overthrow their government. Many citizens are ex-soldiers as well, you know. How would the army be able to do anything with the entire country against them? How would they even EAT?

Even urban riots can be hard to put down until they die out on their own, so if The People REALLY wanted to overthrow their government,

They Could.

Radicals overthrowing the US Goverment?? Where would they get parking spaces.??