Stevens comment, "Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims.", shows just how far out of touch he and other liberals are - gun laws are proven to take guns from law-abiding citizesn, leaving only the 'thugs' with them.

Sadly, Stevens' comments don't just reflect being "out of touch", but, in that sense that seems to overwhelm many lifelong progressives, including all four dissenting on this opinion, being in a different world. The Stevens dissent read more like a break from reality that any kind of valid argument.

Dissenters shot themselves in the left leg of doctrinaire liberalism.

The only substantive finding of both the DC and Chicago cases is that absolutge prohibition violates the Second Amendment.

Law suits contesting present and subsequent regulations will probably number in the dozens.

How many states will enact a constitutional amend-

ment stating in substance

No legislative nor executive authority shall

enact unreasonable regulations relative to

the acquision, ownership, use and transfer

of non-military weapons

the government doesn't care one wit about families and properties. all it cares about is the potential for revolt and the power that revolt may have.

kevin's comment is a good one because it points out that the good justice stevens is reduced formulating argument based on opinion. the facts are too difficult to deal with. as in, what is the answer to the question, "which racial group(s)from which populated regions are statistically most likely to commit crimes with firearms?" the factual answers to that question are irrelevant to the liberal legal discussion, because enforcement of current and relevant pistol carrying laws might involve so-called profiling in certain urban regions of the country.

Heard a comment on TV the other day about the Second Amendment being expressly enacted for Militias, but not for individual citizens.

If that is the case, MS-13, Crips, Bloods, Hell's Angels, and other organized/semi-organized gangs and "clubs" have more rights to have arms than I and my unaffiliated elderly neighbors.

I cannot believe that is what the founders had in mind when they argued the positive/negatives of enacting the second amendment.

Excuse me,please? Am I to understand that it is o.k. to murder a living human being, defensless, just emerging from the Mother, with a scalpel---but it is 'contrary to good order' for me to disable, or kill,with a firearm a criminal attacking me? The vote in the SCOTUS should have been 9-0.

Jon, you said the vote should have been 9-0. No, there shouldn't be a vote at all. The very reason we have a "right" to keep and bear arms according to the founders has more to do with rising up against a despotic govt. Why then would we let that very govt have any say in our ability to keep and bear? Bill Orrielly said it was OK when they took the guns away during Katrina. Let me understand this-the very people we need the firearms to defend ourselves against can dictate gun policy?

The below list indicates the American values liberals stand for:

Late term/partial birth abortion

abortion with tax payer funding

larger govt

smaller less effective and weakened military

higher taxes

homosexual marriage

letting the greenie wackjobs influence legislation

amnesty for those that break into our country (as a voting base_

giving condoms to 9 year olds

etc, etc, etc

and of course they are also anti gun

all special agendas, all at an enormous price to society.

My only special agenda is that we need to live by the Constitution

The scum from obama down to our well meaning but ignorant liberal neighbors are well on the way to accomplishing their goal-the destruction of real America

It the Bill of RIGHTS!!! - RIGHTS!!!

That's why it's called "The Bill of RIGHTS" in the first place!

..."the RIGHT...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE...the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear arms shall NOT be Infringed!"

There is no planer language.

Piss off a liberal, buy a gun.

In fact, buy a RIFLE and become thoroughly expert in its use. That not only pisses them off, it scares them enough to wet their diapers. The more of us doing that the better.

Kevin: You are right. When we outlaw guns, only the lawless will possess them because they will find a way and they will not respect the gun law any more than the other laws they violate with reckless abandon. That leaves the law-abiding citizenry to be ... SHEEP.

The Supreme Court is amazingly prejudiced and activist. I thank the Author (Mr. Sullom) for an excellent article on the hypocrisy of the leftist members of the court.

PS: Is anyone surprised that the "wise Latina woman" justice dissented in this?

Jon: GREAT point, well said.

BJ: Thanks for the(partial) list of liberal offenses against a) God, b) common sense, c) we the people, d) the very Constitution of the United States....

Liberals truly don't reason with logic because they lack vritical thinking skills. They are also fixated on pretending that marxist/communist philosophies can work if we just give them a chance! Rubbish.

Thomas Jefferson knew the propensity of man to crave and ultimately abuse power. The Second Amendment was put in place as a mechanism for the People to overthrow an illegitimate government as we have today. My ballots will be my bullets in November and on the 3rd we shall begin the long journey back to limited government, but I have been known to be overly optimistic ;-)

If "the people" want to ban handguns, they say, "the people" should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

...and they can, through a process called an ammendment to our Constitution. Maybe the justices should read Article V of the Constitution.

A correction to your statement, "The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide." We are a Constitutional Republic, see Article 4, Section 4. In a democracy 51% of the people can vote to kill the remaining 49% and it is all democratically done. BTW, Adolph was democratically elected.

When someone says we are a democracy it is like chalk rubbing on a blackboard.

As a retired US Army Cavalry Scout with sniper training, I have done as Colorado Pete suggested.

Owning and using firearms has been a way of life for me and my family.

There should have been NO debate and there wasn't even a need to vote. The Second Amendment uses plain language that anyone can understand. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What could be clearer? "Joe, you can own a gun."

Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are slaves. How do you choose to live your life?

Invites an avalanche of litigation? Oh. I see. He wants to sit on the Supreme Court. Just sit. Not work. I get it. That's some admission.

"Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders," he explains, "they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims."

Steven's comment negates itself regarding the duality of gun ownership. So Steven's is saying that on one hand the legal gunowner should be able to defend family & property(defense), while on the other hand thugs use guns to murder (offense). So his dissent is a vote for the thug?

At first, I was happy to hear the court's decision, but then became immediately concerned with the split being so close...shouldn't have any dissenters at all!

Libs want Pro Choice to murder unborn, or partial birth babies but don't want to give anyone the choice to own firearms or defend persons and property.

Didn't Sotomayor in her recent confirmation hearings express her belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right. It's amazing how fast she has changed her mind.

It is frightening to me that the four justices who voted in the minority (to say nothing of the inexperienced nitwit that Obama has nominated as a replacement jurist) are part of a body that has the final word on my rights under the Constitution. But for Anthony Kennedy, this easily could have gone the other way. Like many, I am wondering why this A) wasn't 9-0 or B) why it was appealed all the way to the SCOTUS in the first place. The first judge to take the case should have ruled against Chicago, and the first appellate court should have refused to hear the case.