What do you think of the Supremem Court affirming the right of the individual to own a handgun?

The Supreme Court, in a landmark 5-4 decision, ruled that the Washington, DC ban on handguns was unconstitutional. The majority ruled that the Second Amendment right to own a firearm applies to the individual, not just 'a well regulated militia'. The entire 2nd 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.' What I find so ridiculous is the arguments made by those who claim this amendment only pertains to the right of states to have a National Guard. Why on earth would the framers of the constitution limit the rights of 'the people', which in every other part of the constitution refers to an individual right, to those who are commissioned by the government (the National Guard) who can then disarm 'the people' on orders from said government? In The Federalist Papers, the right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms, was meant as a check against a tyrannical government.

Someone said that Roberts hasn't delivered on his promise to 'not have so many close (5-4) decisions.' What is Roberts supposed to do about it? Take Souter into the back room and slap him until he comes around?

It sounds like four Supreme Court justices have committed treason and should be tar and feathered. It is completely unacceptable to allow those put in charge of protecting the constitution to vote against it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I also liked bootedbylibsx2's response. Thanks. Report Abuse

You are exactly right, and so were 5 of the 9 justices. It is rather disturbing that the other four have such a limited understanding of our constitution.

Finally the system worked as it was designed, to uphold the law of the land, not create it.

well, even a broken clock is right twice a day; in this case, the court got it right

Most experts say it won't have any real effect on gun laws, with even Scalia writing that the most important parts of gun control legislation are not to be considered void.

As for the individual right part - we have waited 220 years for this part of the second amendment to be conclusively ruled on and I would have hoped for such an important decision to have been decided by something more than a 5-4 vote. Roberts promised that he would ensure that there weren't so many narrow decisions and has not delivered on this promise.