If the last eight years has taught liberals anything, it ought to be that the means to resist tyranny and governmental lawlessness (no, not by having miniguns and antitank weapons, but by having enough firepower in civilian hands to dissuade the government and its myrmidons from trying to roll over us) is of great value.

We have been 'rolled' over the last eight years Mr. Wigmarx. I never even had a opportunity to waste one lawless 'loyal Bushie' or a single 'myrmidon' with my 32 round extended clip Glock or my 9mm Lugar both of which I keep loaded with safety open in my hand or under my pillow 24 x 7 WigJack.

And if American blacks were not armed in the time of Jim Crow, the South would be nearly all white today.

Hellllooooooo????? What history book have you been reading?

Blacks who could not exist in the south during Jim Crow migrated north. Uh, killing Mr. Charlie left you hanging like strange fruit from some tree.

If the last eight years has taught liberals anything, it ought to be that the means to resist tyranny and governmental lawlessness (no, not by having miniguns and antitank weapons, but by having enough firepower in civilian hands to dissuade the government and its myrmidons from trying to roll over us) is of great value.

We have been 'rolled' over the last eight years Mr. Wigmarx. I never even had a opportunity to waste one lawless 'loyal Bushie' or a single 'myrmidon' with my 32 round extended clip Glock or my 9mm Lugar both of which I keep loaded with safety open in my hand or under my pillow 24 x 7, how about you Mr. WigJack?

"I know this is basically what the case was about."

And I know basically what Bose-Einstein condensates are all about, too.

May I suggest you and Jade 7243 actually read the Court's own summary of the decision? It isn't that long.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

* * *

The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the , so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

[Held:] 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

[Held:] 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf