They were certainly intended to be able to have weapons in their homes, which hardly would constitute “stockpiles.” The right to keep and bear arms (addressed separately in the Amendment, in a separate clause) is an individual right; this is a fact, not an opinion. The reference to the militia is the rationale (among others) chosen for the “why.” (It is language similar to that used by state governments at the time.)

Those who wrote and ratified the words are those who define their meaning. Despite decades of doing it, liberal activists have never been able _legitimately_ to say that nowadays the word “red,” or other words used in its place whose meaning is fully understood from the context, such as “crimson” or “scarlet,” now means green. You make such statements every day, because it's what you prefer, but it is not correct and it is not right.

This ruling was refreshing common sense as well as obviously correct.

Note the nature of the negative reactions to it, and of those who object to it!

Runasim: Yes, it has – in the opinion of some people…

Nic: Yep…those “some people” being the ones that wrote the U.S. Constitution.

You're entitled to your own set opinions but not your own set of facts. The Framers of the Constitution fully intended the Second Amendment to be an INDIVIDUAL right, not a COLLECTIVE right.

Yes, it has – in the opinion of some people, but others interpret the amendment differently.. The intent is what t the debate has been about, and stating it as fact does not make it so.
Today's' decision was a 5-4 OPINION , not an affirmation of fact, but an expression of majority opinion..

To state this as if it were fact is to assume a mindset like that of fundamentlist Christians for whom their interpretation of the Bible is also fact.

What is most troubling is that the decision was reached on an ideologically abstract plane, without a moment's regard for the citizens of D.C or how this decision would affect them.

How many of those happy with this decision would welcome the SC coming to their neighborhood to tell them how to live?

I, for one one, don't welcome the increase in such callous attitudes and miss the days when consideration for others and their views had not yet gone out of style.

He did do exactly that.

The question about limitations, on this, as on any right, is still open.
We're not ttalking about absolute,any time, anyone, any weapon, rigths, much as the NRA would like to have us think so.
Refer to the ruling for a clear statement on that.
.

Obama's “position” strikes me as a non-position. He responded to the ruling with the following statement:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures.

The D.C. gun ban wasn't simply a modest form of regulation intending to keep guns out of the hands of criminals…It was an outright gun that effectively deprived every person living in D.C. of their Second Amendment right.

If Obama truly believes that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, then why doesn't he come out and say that he supports the Supreme Court ruling?

What kind of justices would Obama and McCain prefer and promote?