Hey, me too!
One little point on CS's last post:
>The ruling will come down against the Second Amendment's constitutionality
That isn't possible, because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Of course the Supremes can interpret it to mean either of the two extremes (or anywhere in between), but they can't just decide to throw it out. That would require another amendment via the usual process.
I think the 2nd amendment has not been repealed simply because of it's ambiguity. If the Supreme Court does give us a clean, non-compromise interpretation either way, then I believe a new amendment will be immediately introduced. If they decide the 2nd only applies to state National Guard units, then the NRA et al will sponser a new amendment to protect individual's rights. If instead they decide it confirms individual's rights to own any type of weapon they like, then a wide variety of groups will endorse an amendment to repeal the existing 2nd amendment and replace it with something more restrictive.
But I bet the SC will try very hard to come up with some sort of compromise that preserves the status quo: They usually try to avoid breaking things.
Whimsical idea department:
1) They decide it guarantees individual's rights to own all personal arms in use in 1787, without government restriction. Everything invented after that year is subject to regulation.
2) They decide it does permit ownership of any type of personal weapon, but that governments are free to heavily regulate (or forbid) possession of ammunition.
