I am still reading through the case, however, the Heller decision is great news. Scalia’s opinion is remarkable and contains quite a few smack down moments for Stevens’ and Breyer’s dissent.
Breyer’s dissent is most interesting. He isn’t analyzing the Constitutionality of the law, he is EMOTING.
Assume, for argument's sake, that the Framers did intent the Amendment to offer
a degree of self-defense protection. Does that mean that the Framers also
intended to guarantee a right to possess a loaded gun near swimming pools,
parks, and playgrounds? That they would not have cared about the children
who might pick up a loaded gun on their parents' bedside table? That they (who
certainly showed concern for the risk of fire, see supra, at 5-7) would have
lacked concern for the risk of accidental deaths or suicides that readily
accessible loaded handguns in urban areas might bring?
Good gravy. Our Constitution was written by our Founding Father’s who (rightfully so) felt the majority of our citizens are decent, law abiding types. As such, the majority of people are not going to be hauling assault rifles by the droves to play grounds. The ones that would do this would be criminals, and those armed law abiding types would be there to confront said criminal.
Breyer, like most lunatic liberals, think people just automatically flock to the lowest common denominator and as such need all kinds of governmental intervention in order to save us from ourselves. The fact of the matter is, most American citizens are what the Framers thought we would be – decent. It is the majority, decent citizens that provide the protection against those that aren’t, thereby securing our Nation. The Second amendment makes this job easier.