Finally!

The Supreme Court finally made a ruling that was strictly based on the Constitution's original intent... in this case, the (individual's) right to bear arms.

I disagree with a lot of the Court's rulings, mostly because (whether I agree with the end result or not), in my opinion, they're often not founded on the Constitution. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and determine whether or not it conflicts with the fundamental rights given to us in our Constitution, not to decide (based on their own personal preference or politics) which laws are allowed to be enforced or not. But, I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

Anyway, it really bothered me that there were/are several places in this country that do not allow you to own a gun in your own home. Or, if you do own one, you have to have prior government approval, register the gun, keep it unloaded and disassembled or locked. In Washington D.C., if you unlocked your own gun in your own home, it instantly became illegal. How can you possibly defend your own home if you're not even allowed to unlock your gun?!

I believe that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms - whether they're in the militia or not (this interpretation has been touted recently by some who want us to think that the founding fathers only intended for those in the military/militia to be able to bear arms). I believe there is good evidence to support that the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow individual citizens to protect themselves from intruders, including their own government. When you only allow the people with all of the governmental control the power to arm themselves, the rest of us are at the mercy of our officials.

I also think that some laws restricting citizens who've passed background checks and earned concealed carry permits to carry their guns in certain places have also proved to be deadly. Whenever we write laws restricting gun use by approved citizens, the only people who obey the rules are the law abiding citizens. If someone wants to go on a shooting rampage, do they care if there is a law barring them from carrying a gun on a school campus? No! But, as a result of the law, all of the potential victims are sitting ducks because no one else is able to defend themselves.

I understand that we do need some restrictions - obviously criminals convicted of violent crimes and the seriously mentally ill do not need access to guns, but that doesn't mean that any state or city has the right to use that as an excuse to keep law abiding citizens from exercising their second amendment rights.

I wish I could readily give you all of the current statistics on the number of crimes prevented by armed citizens. I know they are high. I had an economics professor in college who made us chant, "More guns, less crime!"

John Lott, author of a book with that title, said in an interview a few years ago, "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

"Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves."

Regardless of the controversy over carrying concealed guns in public, the Supreme Court's decision to uphold every American's right to protect their own home from intrusion is a major victory.