Gun rights battle in the SCOTUS

Some of you may be aware that the Supreme Court has taken up the argument over the right/power (or lack thereof) of Washington, DC to ban gun ownership. I find it amusing that there is even any discussion over original intent necessary during the case. If people would simply take the time to read or study American history, they would know why the 2nd Amendment is included and what it means.

Anyway, there are two interesting articles that I came across during my morning news read. Here is one from The Washington Post and here is the other.

A quote from the Breitbart article:

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—a majority of the nine-member court.

I hope that majority does rule and the liberal gun grabbers' efforts perish.