The Supreme Court has put the question of gun control to rest. In a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the second amendment to the Constitution gives American citizens the right to have guns.

The case in question revolved around the Washington D.C. law prohibiting hand guns altogether. Justice Antonin Scalia spoke for the winning side and while he said that the Constitution does guarantee the right to bare arms, it is not without limitation – his words. There are two sections of the D.C. law that the Supreme Court targeted in particular. The first was the part that banned the private ownership of guns and the second the part that said that any firearms kept in a home had to be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. It seems to me that these two kind of are in opposition to each other. Why have a law saying a gun has to be broken down if the law says you are not allowed to have a gun in the first place?

Most Americans do not have any objection to law abiding citizens owning guns. It is the criminals and irresponsible citizens that should have the right taken away. With every right comes a responsibility and in the case of owning a gun the responsibility involves handling a gun properly. Someone who has never had a gun should be required to pass a course in how to handle a gun responsibly. Background checks and a waiting period should also be mandatory. It is better that someone who is honest has to wait a few days than if someone using stolen identity get his hands on a gun that will be use to do who knows what. The trouble is that each state has its own laws regarding gun control and there is nothing to stop someone from buying a gun in a state where the laws are not strict and bringing it into a state with strict gun control laws.

There are other states and cities that are going to have to change their gun control laws and do it fast. Lets hope it can be done smoothly, that those involved get their laws on the books fast.

The Supreme Court does not have an easy job in figuring out what the founding fathers meant all those years ago. After all, they did not exactly to into much detail. Imagine having to try and think like the founding fathers did and try to read their minds. There is one thing for certain. Guns were more important back then. If you did not have a gun, you had no meat for dinner.

Guns also once meant protection from the government itself. In this day and age, where technology rules, it is not a fair fight. Not even our sacred second amendment can instill fear in the government. My question to you is… where should the line be drawn?