The term 'landmark ruling' is bantered about quite freely by both the left and right.In reality, it should be reserved for Supreme Court decisions like the one today - in which a 5 to 4 majority defended the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. They said it clearly grants Americans the right to own and keep guns in their home for self defence.
Unbelievably, it was the first time in America's 200 year history that the Supreme Court had to decide on this hot issue - which divides right and left as sharply as issues like abortion.
Despite my clear dislike of guns - as I wrote about here - I have to admit that I'm happy with this decision. Why? Because it's clearly the correct interpretation of the Constitution.
The issue arose when a security guard, Dick Anthony Heller, was refused permission to keep a handgun in his Washington D.C. home. The District of Colombia has had a blanket ban on private gun ownership since 1976 - citing the sensible argument that suburbanites don't need weapons.
Which is true - and I fundamentally agree with that principle. However, the Constitution of the United States wasn't written with Washington suburbanites in mind. It was written with the memory of the Revolutionary War fresh in everybody's memory - and the knowledge that the revolutionary army was often made up of farmers and plantation owners bringing their own muskets to the battlefield.
The fact that these private citizens owned guns was the sole reason they were able to fight back against British occupation - and that cemented the importance of private gun ownership in the common American psychology.
But private gun ownership in America was important long after the revolutionary war.
Private citizens with rifles and pistols fought off Mexicans at the Alamo. People defended their plantations and homes against Confederates or Union soldiers during the American Civil War.
In the lawless wild west, a shotgun and pistols were essential to defend your homestead from Indians or desperadoes - or to deter shenanigans in a saloon-room game of poker.
Even during the 20th century, private gun ownership has played it's part. During the days of 'lynchings,' more than a few African American families were saved when 'Pop' scared off the mob with the business end of a twelve gauge.
When corrupt local lawmen wouldn't help, it was the 2nd Amendment (or, at least, the principle of it) which provided the most desperate last line of defence.
So while it's all too easy, in our smug suburban existence, to forget the important role the 2nd Amendment has played in American history, we should make an effort not to.
Yes, it's true. Living in the commuter belt of New York city, I know I don't need a gun. In fact, I'm more worried about my neighbours 'packing heat' than what might occur if we left our homes 'defenceless.'
I've said it once and I'll say it again - a Louisville Slugger is probably the most effective form of home defence out there.
But the issue up for discussion was THE LAW.
Aristotle told us: The law is reason free from passion.
Therefore, as much as I hate guns - passionately, in fact - the only reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the one decided on today by the Supreme Court.
