while I appreciate your concern about the over zealousness of some reagrding MGs etc, please dont be too critical of the opinions...we've been derided as too ignorant to understand the nuances of plain English for so long that the simple thought of reading the plainly written text is a long overdo 'I told ya so' to the libtards that have preached collectivism down to us podunkerz for so many years...
that said, its frustrating to realize that although I believe there will be an 'individual right' ruling...it will be virtually meaningless for many years to come. It took the Heller case what, 14 years to work thru the system???
My hope is that there are already those 'perfect' plaintiffs that have been recruited thru the Hellar years, with all the paperwork ready to file the day the decision is handed down, preferably in the most conservative districts across the country...
The other 'vision' I had is that the supremes, being a fairly learned bunch, will realize that they could distinguish themselves amongst their beltway brethren by ruling as broadly as possible , which would go a long ways in 'kevlar-ing' themselves from the ultimate implosion of the country if the socialists keep advancing at the current pace...
The fact that the question was narrow doesnt restrict their decision/opinion, but the fact that the 'progun' counsel was willing to concede ground when given an opportunity to deliver a strong argument is really frustrating...
That and knowing how a lawyer can redefine the word 'is', leaving our Rights in their hands is a crap shoot...
LFOD...
Ginsberg KNOWS that this case is about machine guns as much as handguns. Is the Heller Court going to invent yet a new "self-defense" category of firearms that is protected by the Second Amendment? That "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be constrained by whatever the Court decides are suitable arms for whatever purposes the Court recognizes? I think Ginsberg knows that isn't going to happen.
If Ginsberg votes for individual right, then how can she vote for less than strict scrutiny? And if she votes for strict scrutiny, then machine guns are IN.
Ginsberg and the other commies have decided that there is a right to privacy that prohibits the government from preventing a school teacher from taking a pregnant teenager out of school without her parents' permission to allow a physician to kill the unborn child. How on earth can they articulate a reason to keep a combat veteran, for example, from keeping in his home the same weapon that his government demanded he carry in a foreign city?