Well, well, well ... this decision has been LONG overdue. At least they figured it out correctly.
Why? Let me keep it simple.
Let's look at the legal argument of the 2nd Amendment (having to do with its purpose and intent).
The 2nd Amendment states:
"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."
This means that individuals have the right to bear arms and also recognizes that regulated militas are required for national (or state) security. Some will try to merge these two purposes to apply only to the "regulated militia". However, the body of evidence refutes this tack. Numerous writers of the period have elaborated on this right that is consistent with the pre-existing individual right to bear arms.
I try to avoid copy and paste of text, but for ease of keeping to my point, let me show you this quote from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), written by St. George Tucker. He was a lawyer, Revolutionary military officer, legal scholar and in 1813 was appointed by James Madison to be a U.S. District Court judge. Writing specifically about the 2nd amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.
True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
Here, it is obvious that a legal scholar of the time understood an individual's right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense!
But, wouldn't outlawing guns do away with about violence in our society, you say? Shouldn't we limit or eliminate arms for all but the military and police force in the interest of removing tools of destruction from our streets, schools and homes, etc?
If one were to think objectively about that statement, common sense would prevail and one would realize that by making guns illegal, we are not kept safe. The net affect would be to remove guns from law-abiding citizens, but have no effect whatsoever on the criminals who are doing the harm with guns (or with other weapons, for that matter). Outlawing or controlling guns only controls those who respect and abide by the law. Prohibiting or controlling guns only frees criminals to commit more crime with greater abandon, because they know we have been made into helpless sheep!
Criminalizing guns only aids and abets criminals ... not our law-abiding citizenry.
Lastly (though there are more that I can think of):
When one of the posters at this site made the point that his brother had been killed in a hunting accident and noted that if guns were illegal his brother would be alive today.
In a portion of my response to him, I said: "Sad about your brother. But, do we outlaw automobiles because my uncle was killed in a truck accident? Do we outlaw airplanes because hundreds can die when it crashes; I could go on and on ... "
In conclusion, let me be clear how serious I am about this issue. Though I voted for Barack Obama in the Primary, if I thought for a second he would curtail my right to bear arms, I'd vote AGAINST him in a hot minute!