Now We're Screwed.

I could NOT disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment more.
It is horrifically discouraging to me that this conservative court has taken this stance.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, obviously, but I cannot for the life of me see how the times and intent of the founding fathers could be interpreted as being as viably relevant today as it was centuries ago. The context and circumstances of the time HAVE to be taken into account.

Now... THAT said and done, there will be a massive hue and cry by all sectors of individuals, organizations and, of course, the idiotic "entertainment news & opinion" pundits that the Supreme court has either SAVED the country itself or DESTROYED all that is holy ... when, in fact, the Supreme Court has done it's job. They interpreted the Constitution as it exists.

This doesn't HAVE to be the end. It is the process. But people don't get that.

If the people of this country want to change something, then it is FIRMLY in their power to do so. If they want to give each state it's own say in allowing or disallowing people to carry guns, then they can do that. If they wish to change the law and make it so that owning or carrying guns are not a constitutional right, then they can do that. If ENOUGH people want it to be that EVERYONE HAS TO carry and wear a gun or blow-dart, then they can do that. There is nothing stopping any changes form occurring. there is a process in place and if it is followed, then we can do whatever the hell we want.

But no one will speak of that ... they will speak of "ruling and legislating from the bench" and they will pout and whine ... but this is the way it works.

Sadly, what people DON'T put enough weight in, is their choice of president. The president is directly involved in nominating supreme court justices. If we elect a hard liberal or conservative to be president, and DON'T know what their plan is for nominating to the court when openings occur, then it's our fault.




Court Says Individuals Have Right to Own Guns
Decision is justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history
MSNBC and NBC News
updated 11:21 a.m. ET, Thurs., June. 26, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "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."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
'Landmark victory'The ruling quickly became fodder for the presidential race. Sen. John McCain lauded the decision in a written statement, calling it a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."
The Republican presidential hopeful criticized his rival Barack Obama's stance on the issue, saying the Democrat had refused to sign a statement calling for Thursday's ruling.
"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.
The White House also praised the ruling.
"We are pleased by the Court's decision upholding Americans right to bear arms. We look forward to reading the ruling in detail," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Capital's strict gun lawThe capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.