It was a decision in which both sides the Opinion of the court and the Dissent used history to beat up politics..sometimes the same history but different interpretations of it. Justice Scalia, citing a combination of legal and linguistic points, made the point that the Constitution clearly included a right for individual use of arms, not merely collective use. And in the Court's opinion, the fact that the 2nd amendment doesn't quite do what it is supposed to do due to the lack of militia as the Founders understood it, is irrelevant to the right to bear arms. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that the 2nd amendment is truly for the purpose of protecting state militias from being disbanded. And Justice Bryer issued a second dissenting opinion, citing how colonial cities did regulate guns. We review this, along with my own interpretation of the 2nd amendment which is somewhere between the opinion and the dissent.
