riting for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

"the historical narrative" - that's a good one. Somehow the "historical narrative" meant nothing when Gore v. Bush was under consideration. BTW, I am generally in favor of this ruling.

This is one of the cultural differences between our usually quite similar nations that used to keep me up until dawn debating/arguing with friends from south of the border all through my youth and into my so-called mature years.

Now that I am into my dotage a tiny sliver of wisdom has penetrated, and that is don't even touch this debate with a ten-foot pole

don't even touch this debate with a ten-foot pole

Generally agree. I think it is an argument based in emotion rather than logic. Logically, the guns should go. But humans have emotions for a reason...