i can *maybe* understand disagreeing with a sc decision, however, i do usually defer to them since interpreting the constitution is their fucking job. nevertheless, i don't get the complete lack of comprehending that decision.
it's all right here in Justice Scalia's opinion of the Court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
it's a somewhat easy read and defines fucking everything- militia, arms, regulated, right to bear, all of it.
i've posted that before, others have as well, it's been referenced, quoted from, etc., et al, on & on, ad nauseum yet several don't get it. weird.