This is incredibly biased. Next time just state the ruling and outcome. If you care to put an opinion, do if afterwards and make clear it's your own.
"So its nice that law abiding citizens will finally be able to defend themselves from criminals."
"Unfortunately, as is the chicago way, their felons... er im mean politicians, will still do what ever the possibly can to keep the citizens from defending themselves from crime."
"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense." Contradiction.
The US currently bans possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, for the sole reason that they can only be used to kill and injure people. Why does this not apply to guns (assuming the hunting and recreational practices get permits)?
--
Have you considered that maybe the constitution is wrong, outdated and needs to be changed? Is the only valid interpretation of that language that i) EVERYONE, in a militia or not, can bear arms and ii) absolutely no controls can be imposed in it?
If the studies are inconclusive then maybe do some more studies on it?
