good job, SCOTUS.

we still have a second amendment.

Some of the recent (and not-so-recent) decisions I've disagreed with (notably the one that says a developer can take your house under Eminent Domain if he can prove that there will be a "public good" in the mere sense of more tax revenue). But - even though I don't carry a gun and probably never would - this one is a little relief.

(And SCOTUS....please remember this when someone tries to make laws abridging the First Amendment, ok?)

Yes, I know - a lot of people who should NOT have guns get them (lots of times via means that are illegal anyway, and arguably, if guns were banned, criminals would still be able to get guns). And I do favor the idea of background checks and especially keeping guns out of the hands of felons, people with known "issues," and others who are not safe with a gun.

But I'm *just* survivalist enough - just paranoid enough - to think, "when they make guns illegal, that could open the door for some Mugabe-type to take power - and we wouldn't even be able to raise an army against him. Well, other than an army of pitchfork-and-torch bearing citizens, who'd probably get mowed down pretty fast).

I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me on this - that's fine. But I do think we need to have some kind of statute in place that says "you may make laws limiting who may purchase a gun and where they may carry it, but you may not make laws saying that law-abiding, sane citizens who would only ever use a gun for target practice or self-defense if their family was threatened cannot have one."