It ain't over until the fat lady sings. Even then it ain't truly over. I'm hoping for the best, but I think we better all read the damned opinion before we pop the champagne corks. Our opponents are unprincipled and willing to use any means fair or foul to achieve a government monopoly on arms.

In fact the claims to limit and regulate the right to bear arms stands separate from the right itself.
We have many laws limiting and regulating the freedom of speech because it was decided to be a necessity and we are just balancing the limitations that the post 9/11 era has made possible.
I think that the discussion is far from over whatever the supreme court decision would be

Telling. The "fat lady" not not yet sung and already the FSA is claiming (infering) that the Supreme Court will issue a "flawed" individual rights intepretation of the 2A, and more importantly to their message, that this interpretation is the product of the [evil, retrogressive] "gun lobby."

Thus, vilification has begun in regard to this ruling...which hasn't even been issued yet.

I predict a great amount of whining and gnashing of teeth. And we shall overcome that, too.

Is it me or does that first paragraph say: "Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyways! It's for the children you see!"

The comments by the FSA echo what Paul Helmke said a few days ago. They both seem pretty sure that the "flawed" individual right interpretation will prevail.

The fact that these two "organizations" have essentially conceded defeat in advance leads me to believe that they have a mole in the Court somewhere.