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Have you considered that maybe the constitution is wrong, outdated and needs to be changed?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?

Nuclear weapons could be the ultimate weapon of self-defence. "Don't loiter in front of my diner or i'll kill every last one of us."

It's only defending his private property, after all.

All in the name of freedom, of course. If law-abiding citizens had access to F-15's, nuclear submarines, ICBMs, tanks, and chemical and biological weapons, then government would think twice before making us pay for someone else's birth control.

i made the thread of course its going to have my opionion in it. i then gave a link to a news article with their take on it. but i only cared about mine so i wrote my opinion.

I was just saying, clearly seperate the story quote/link and your opinion.

as for the bold thatt o is unconstitutional. the constitution isnt about hunting. its about defending ourselves from tyranny whether that come from an individual or the government. citizens should be as a well armed as the government. even so guns have numerous more purposes and uses than say a nuke.

The words are ambiguous. You know that. The most obvious reading of the words doesn't tell us anything about gun laws.

and the constitution cant be wrong, its our laws.

No. Laws can be wrong.

if you dont like it, ammend it. until then our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

According to ONE, and not even the most literal, interpretation. The Court is making a politically motivated reading, that is undeniable.

first of all those things cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars to build and good louck finding someone who would build it for you, as currently the companies that do are contracted by the government to build them. so not only would you not have someone to build them, but if you somehow could, good luck not having everybody know you do.

ps: im fairly certain you can own an f-15, its just has to be rendered inoperable.

any way your whole premise is idiotic. we are talking about guns not nukes. the weapons you mentioned are already illegal, those have not been and are not a threat to anybody.

citizens should have the right (we do) be be as well armed as the us government 

Max I cannot ever agree with you, and I hope your version of morality doesn't become the majority in my country.

--

Max I cannot ever agree with you, and I hope your version of morality doesn't become the majority in my country.

In no way do the citizens have the right to be as well armed as the government. The most basic function of a state is to have a monopoly on legitimate use of force. It can commission its citizenry to have limited ability to use force in self-defense cases, but if the people are as well armed as the state, there is anarchy by default.