> Also, if the commenters here READ the full decision, the court explains the history and its reasoning better than any of us can do here.

Sometimes the reasoning is specious and a fig leaf (e.g., Heller); have no idea how good it is here.

If you are stating that Heller is specious and a fig leaf, you are arguing from a position of bad faith. You may disagree with the constitutional basis for the decision and wish the second amendment to be abolished, but the decision was well stated and solid.

> You may disagree with the constitutional basis for the decision and wish the second amendment to be abolished, but the decision was well stated and solid.

The decision, as written by the late Scalia, to create an individual right bears no resemblance to any historical or legal precedent. Acting as amateur linguist and etymologist, it is ironic that Scalia, a so-called Originalist, also ignores the original meaning of the terms in the amendment.

This is independent of whether 2A is currently useful, or—even more importantly—whether it was even a good/effective idea in the first place.

I would point people to the decision itself. This throw0101b is clearly acting in bad faith to anyone happening to read this.

> I would point people to the decision itself. This throw0101b is clearly acting in bad faith to anyone happening to read this.

People should read the decision. People should also read the dissent. They should also read commentary on the decision. They should also read the legal and cultural history of 2A.

There's no bad faith in thinking Scalia et al got it wrong.