[Joe Brower]

Excellent arguments. But let's face it, our main worry isn't history, or the facts, or the truth, or even the laws of nature itself -- they all fall squarely on the side of private firearms ownership.

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

[uncbob]

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

Exactly

[mvpel]

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality be damned.

Well, at least then it will be evident where we stand, and what meaning the phrase "rule of law" retains in America.

I really am not too worried about that, so since that's the primary worry, I'm not too worried at all. To wit:

The historians assert, for example, that Pennsylvania's language--"the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"--does not refer to a private right.

I'll bet when counsel for DC and the solicitor general are through being raked over the coals for this and many other absurdities in their reasoning, they'll wish they'd had 4.5 minutes, instead of 45 minutes of oral arguments.

[paul51]

No, our primary worry with this case is judges ignoring all that and ruling as they please, reality constitution be damned.