1. Tell you what...examine Roe V Wade with the same analysis you give this decision and then lecture me about judicial activism. The leftists are in an uproar about a clearly delineated right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. Poor them. When has the Left EVER been right? (Dictatorship of the proletariat, withering away of the state, yeah right).

---

2. reRob:Goodness, you rightists truly frighten me with such fear of analysis. To be so willfully blind to the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment is so profoundly ignorant that one has to conclude you have devious intent. If the Framer's had meant individual rights, why did they not express that as clearly as in the other 9?Perhaps you are making an honest mistake. It is lazy and meaningless to assert that terms have meaning without attempting to define them byREADING and using a DICTIONARY. You should at least acknowledge that this decision overturns precedent. If you think the Constitution IS the precedent, you obviously don't understand this term

---

3. Analysis, analysis, analysis! Argue and so on. This country was founded with civilian people! They had guns before the constitution, the bill of rights and all was ever written. My point being, the guns were never taken away from the civilians, even after the militia was formed. Civilians have always owned guns, and always will. To try to take away our weapons now which I have, and will always keep till the day I die, would only start a new revolution like noone has ever seen before! Not saying that I would start it, but like the old saying goes- "The day they take my gun is when they pry it from my cold dead hands!"

---

4. Yes, there is a clause that refers to the fact that guns are necessary to form a militia. The amendment then goes on to say that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms . . ." the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the MILITIA. If the founders had meant only the militia had the right to keep and bear arms, they would have phrased it that way. "The right of the Militia to keep and bear arms . . ."

---

5. I, believe there are far too many people who want to make changes to our Constitution. Every sentence every word they must interpet or twist to give meaning to what they believe in. Personnaly, I'm a gun owner and I understand what is written in the 2nd Ammendment without the use of a dictionary or thesaurus.

---

6. I really respect Dean Chemerinsky's intelligence and have done so for many years. However, this article seems to miss the fairly obvious and the bill of rights was largely about ensuring rights and liberties to individuals. The Gun case is a far more clear-cut reading of our constitution than is decifering freedom of religion law, where the reading and understandings of what the constitution says on this issue are a lot more conflicted and difficult.

---

7. First of all it's clear Erwin doesn't like guns and if he ever does need one for protection hopefully he can find a real man willing to stand up and fight for what's right.Secondly, was Erwin so concerned about judicial activism when the Ca. supreme court voted to let guys marrie each other!

---

8. BTW, Among the reasons Prof Chemerinsky is an idiot, is that he cannot even properly interpret the 1939 Miller case. That ruling in no way contradicted an individual right. It only stated that certain types of firearms were not suitable for Militia use, and therefore could be restricted. If we were to apply the Miller ruling to today, M-16s would be legal for civilian ownership, for use in a "Militia".

---

9. I DO BELEIVE THAT STATE MILITIAS DIDEN,T COME INTO EXISTANCE UNTIL SOME 200 YEARS AFTER THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS RATIFIED. ALSO EVERY ARTICLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS REFERED TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS..........SO WHY THE CONFUSION??

---

10. Since when does reading the Constitution and understanding English have anything to do with Judicial Activism? It never ceases to amaze me how utterly stupid and dishonest liberals really are.

---