Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
Indians were the first victims of our unhealthy lust for guns. If we had had fewer guns, more slaves would've escaped and more Indians would've lived. Guns are why Indian haters such as Andrew Jackson could enforce their will despite the opposition to them.
Since other cultures don't share our fixation, it's clearly not universal. Americans see the issue one way and foreigners see it another. Therefore, it's a good reason to take a multicultural perspective--to view the issue as other people do.
Anyway, what can we conclude from this ruling?
The claim that these two would be fair and impartial is a pathetic joke. They're almost pure ideologues who rarely if ever vote against their partisan beliefs. The Democratic senators who opposed them were right to do so.
Where in the Founders' voluminous opinions did they say habeas corpus was an option, not an absolute? Nowhere, that's where. The Founders would have kicked Scalia's ass for ignoring their clear intent.