Fellow citizens, the topic was supposed to comment on the ruling by the Court, not a discussion about good and evil, bad guys lurking behind every lamp post, and the right vs. left. The last topic is just imaginary and nebulous as the first two.  Let’s try and parse this out.  The majority opinion says the 2nd Amendment means that individuals can arm themselves with handguns. It does not support a universal right to bear arms. The opinion speaks to regulatory statues prohibiting ownership, possession and possession limitations but at the same time not defiling regulations and laws prohibiting ownership carte blanche of weapons of all sorts by people of all sorts.  The minority opinions focused on two issues: one that the reading of the 2nd Amendment did not lead to the same conclusion, and two that precedent of the Court should have been a factor in deciding the other way.  It is true that in the majority opinion, the justices put themselves in the minds of the framers of the Constitution, and to a lessor extent so did the justices for the minority opinion. In the case of the minority opinion, however, they acknowledged that the framers could not have envisioned a world as we live in today, which is probably not too difficult to believe fully, so to rely on their crystal ball vision as a basis for interpretation STRICTLY robs them of their wisdom and intelligence and bestows way more on those of us alive today than we probably deserve.  But there are other interesting items to observe. First, a great deal of the history of the times, events and personalities from 1776 and beyond tell us that there was a great deal of diversity in the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs of the framers, many disagreeing strongly with this or that issue. Yet we treat the surviving words of compromise and accord with such reference as to make the comical satire in futuristic novels about Constitution worship a little more real than fanciful. Why can’t we admit these guys did a helluva job of creating a great framework for government but all realized it would yield and bend to the ways of the world.  Take the Electoral College as a prime example. Wasn’t it smart of them to realize that it was a simple task to elect a few folks to travel to a central location who in turn would vote instead of direct voting with no national infrastructure to support the counting of ballots and control of the electorate? My guess is they would call us damn fools for keeping this intact and allowing the weird political landscape its advancing glacier has produced.  It is worthy of note as well that the “righters” decry judges who legislate from the bench (when the issues don’t please them) but have no trouble with opinions that create new law out of thin air when it does? See the Exxon ruling for an example.  If J. Scilia and Thomas just once voted with their certainty of the reading of the Constitution to empower the poor, under unprivileged, average worker, or ill-convicted felon (see DNA testing), then we all might be a bit more receptive to these five-star awards. But unfortunately, at least to lay people like myself, the principles of law give way to principles of the heart. I can’t say the same for the four in the key of Minor; I can recall opinions where they said it was onerous for them to rule as they did, but they had to stick to the principles.  Now all of this is aside from guns, deaths, self protection, and as in Arizona, wearing his and her .45s strapped on to their hips to go to the mall.  Just as the justices are able to look at the same set of facts, words and history of the laws, customs and traditions of the country and come to dramatically opposite conclusions about what that all means, we fellow citizens do the same about owning, toting and using handguns. I would not ask anyone not to own a rifle or a shotgun; as a kid, I hunted a little, was a great marksman on the rifle range and won merit badges and safety awards. I can appreciate the craftsmanship of an over and under I saw on New Bond Street in London for a paltry 7,500 British pounds; it was a delight to hold and touch.  At the same time, I cannot understand that anyone who lives in an urban setting needs to have rifles or shotguns at the ready in the unlikely event that the British re-invade or the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! and we need to form a ragtag band of brothers to defeat them (I;ll bring the fife, you bring the drums). If the fear is that a home invader needs to be deterred from doing more than ripping off your iPod, it is hardly the weapon of choice, likely to do more collateral damage than real.  For the life of me, if you don’t live on a farm, ranch or have a second (or more) home that rests on more than 10 acres of heavily wooded land with beasts of prey larger than a small rabbit, I cannot fathom the need for a handgun unless it is locked away, safe from easy discharge, completely separate from ammunition to enable the rapid casting of projectiles. While some of the posters here go on about thundering crowds of roaming criminals, there is not a whole lot of evidence to support that a) an urban family is likely to become a victim [let me discount those folks who dwell in inner city drug ridden areas by expressing my sorrow for their condition but simultaneously knowing that trying to out shoot the drug and gang folks is somewhat fruitless, and based on how little it is reported, perhaps repugnant to them to resort to the same tactics[, b) that defending oneself with a handgun is in and of itself successful [outside of some anecdotes that make headlines “Grannie shoots lemonade stand bandit in the pinky.”  But then again, there are people who would not sleep at all without the cold comfort of a pistol lurking nearby, or feel that they are less of a person for not having a controlled and deadly explosion at their fingertips. It is a feeling from their hearts and who am I to change that?  So instead of arguing about matters of the heart on either side, or the hearts and minds of men long dead (who by the way supported slavery, denying both women and the uneducated the vote, and assorted other things we might not agree to today), why don’t we adopt another perspective?  Why don’t we try and talk about the practicalities of gun ownership and usage? Why would we not allow restricting ownership, storage and usage under some sane and not fearsome requirements? We don’t allow children under a certain age to drive, or to do so with a license and training and demonstrated ability to do so properly (although not enough…). Why would it be a problem to require a gun safety course and test before anyone can buy or own a weapon? Or if you are a legal parent or custodian of a minor, why you don’t have to sign a document accepting liability for the actions of a minor who uses your guns, rifles, etc. Would it be appropriate to regulate how weapons are stored in residences with minors present? And so on.  There are the “only the criminals will have guns” arguments about control and regulation. It is not hard to imagine that tagging could be used to monitor the flow of handguns in this country. What would be the problem about having a system nationally that monitored the sale of every weapon? It would not at all infringe on anyone’s desire to purchase or own one, but it would start to chomp away at guns disappearing into the wrong hands. It is easy for me to understand individuals who want to own guns but at the same time impossible for me to understand why gun companies have not pushed for use of this technology. After all, they are the most vociferous about making gun ownership safe but available.  So if the issue is the decision, we need to talk about the men who made it, why a very different decision might have come from other men and why. It is likely that this will be an election issue, but I hope it is a push for principled and intellectually honest judges in the future and not those who throw the game my way. One day, those guys might throw the game to someone else, and boy will I feel cheated.  â Posted by Rasing Cane
A guide to the wide world of newspaper, magazine and Web opinion.Chris Suellentrop, a former staff writer and political correspondent for the online magazine Slate, has written for the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Wired, New York and Legal Affairs. He lives in Washington, D.C.