Apparently 5 members of the Supreme Court are able to read and comprehand the US Constitution specifically the Second Amendment.
I've never bought into the theory that if you make guns harder and harder to get that criminals will hard pressed to get guns. I think there should be increasing pressure on gun owners to be properly trained, to have proper storage, and on gun manufacturers to continue to develope new products for gun safety. I do however not sympathize with the right to own a bazooka or military type of weapons. Sportsmen and most gun enthusiasts don't own assault rifles, I know collectors want them but I'm not too concerned about their right to own a military style assualt rifle. I'm sure this decision though will spark a firestorm of criticism from the left.
I, and I think most of the people that make the effort to obtain a carry permit, cherish my PRIVILEGE to own and possess a weapon. Yes, the second amendment gives me that RIGHT, but it is only a privilege that can be revoked if I act irresponsibly. I can only speak for myself on this issue. I know that I will do nothing to place in jeopardy that privilege. I consider it my duty to protect my family and I would be shirking that responsibility to act irresponsibly. As long as a gun owner thinks along those lines, I have no concern with that person owning any kind of rifle/pistol available to him/her. I own several weapons that I would not hesitate to use if my family's lives were being threatened. I will not use them under any other circumstances. Corner us and I could and would take a life to preserve ours.
I missed it. What was the decision? (Posted about 15 minutes after the above): Never mind. I saw it and read about it after I posted the question.