waterface11 comments

Do people really think this issue will ruin Obama's chances of winning?!? If anything, it will allow him to ignore this wedge issue. The Supreme Court has made it's decision, regardless of it was the best one for the country, and now Obama can just deflect any questioning on the subject by saying that the Supreme Court has made it's decision and there is nothing that the President of the U.S. can currently do to change that (which is ultimately true. The U.S. President has very little that he/she can do to actively change gun laws in the country.)

And as for the actual ruling, I really think it's a ridiculous decision. The Second Amendment is completely irrelevant now. A "well regulated Militia" is not needed. The U.S. has a large standing military, a National Guard, and state & local police forces to protect the "security of [the] free State." The Second Amendment is not protecting the security of the State anymore, it's protecting the hobbies and interests of gun enthusiasts. Besides, the guns that they are referring to in the D.C. cases could probably never have even been imagined by the writers of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution needs to be relevant to the present, regardless of what was intended 200 years ago.

It's also a bit ironic that these judges who were appointed by conservatives essentially ruled against states and cities rights to decide their own gun regulations. Gun-use and culture in rural Montana is completely different from people living in D.C. or Chicago, and needs to be regulated accordingly.