Same here, I think it's time to finally get a ruling on this. Just reading up on some of the late 18th and early 19th century political thought it was obvious they believed in the individual right of the 2nd Amendment. The militia part was intended as a complementary clause and not a prerequisite to firearm ownership. For the justices to rule otherwise and against plain English would mean they view the Constitution as a living document.
Everyone here should inundate them with letters, emails, phone calls, and faxes, asking them to STFU--(in nice, polite language, of course).