But not everyone who approves of the end result is happy about how the 5-4 majority (or rather, 4-1-4 plurality) arrived to this conclusion. My good friend and legal scholar Josh Blackman explained a few months ago the two different paths the court could take: it could incorporate the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, or it could use the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause.

The plurality went with the first option (Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one to go with the second). There has been and will be a lot of analysis of the implications of this decision, but the article Blackman co-wrote for the Washington Times explained and summarized the situation simply and clearly. Read it here.

Also see Why Capitalism Is Amazing reasons, one, two, three, four, five, and six.

Two quick observatons. First, wow:

How do you feel about Thomas Sowell?
Strongly like: 82% (66 votes)
Like: 17% (14 votes)
Dislike: 0% (0 votes)
Strongly dislike: 0% (0 votes)

I assure you I am among those who "strongly like" Mr. Sowell, only for the lack of a more flattering option. Second, how can up to nine right-of-center bloggers not like Jim DeMint?

How do you feel about Jim DeMint?
Strongly like: 46% (35 votes)
Like: 42% (32 votes)
Dislike: 11% (9 votes)
Strongly dislike: 0% (0 votes)

A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI's preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington's population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

The Constitution requires that the president "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." But it doesn't mandate the modern pageant of pomp, circumstance, and phony promises we suffer through every year.

In fact, for most of the Republic's first century, the SOTU was a modest, informational affair. Presidents sent the written address to Congress, to be read aloud by a clerk. That was thanks to President Jefferson, who thought delivering the speech before Congress assembled smacked too much of a king's "Speech from the Throne."

When the power-hungry Woodrow Wilson overturned the Jeffersonian tradition in 1913, one senator cursed the revival of "the old Federalistic custom of speeches from the throne," calling it a "cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty."

[...]

When Obama had to make way for Lost, some lamented the fact that many Americans preferred trash TV over presidential enlightenment. But the public's lack of interest in the SOTU is actually a sign of political health.

When all eyes turn to the president, demanding he cure whatever ails us, the result is a dangerous concentration of federal power. Thus, it's good that our national talk-show host suffers from declining Nielsens.

A few observations: First, in what gives me my biggest smile in weeks, Mike Huckabee secured a grand total of zero votes. Making me almost as happy is Ron Paul's single vote. Otherwise I like the spread (well, actually, I like the fact that there is a spread), although bloggers seem to be under the impression that some of these candidates are "true" conservatives when they are, in fact, not. Such candidates will inevitably be smoked out, and the field will be cut significantly. It will be interesting to see who will stand to gain - I am guessing the top three: Palin, Pence, and Romney, but Pence more than anybody because bloggers already know Palin and Romney and chose against them. Newt Gingrich should also be polling higher, but I think the bloggers are still punishing him for endorsing Dede Scozzafava in NY-23. His numbers will recover with time if he stays in it.

Now to whom did my vote go? I voted for [computer malfunction]

Governor Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio are now tied in the 2010 race for the Republican Senate nomination in Florida.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters finds Crist and Rubio each with 43% of the vote. Five percent (5%) prefer another candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Crist’s support has fallen from 53% in August to 49% in October. Rasmussen Reports noted at the time, “The fact that Crist has fallen below 50% in a primary against a lesser known opponent suggests potential vulnerability.”

Rubio’s name recognition has grown in recent months and he is now viewed Very Favorably by 34% of Likely Primary Voters. That’s up from 18% in August. As his name recognition increased, Rubio’s support in the polls has jumped from 31% in August to 43% today.

Can we start a pool on when Crist will pull a Specter and switch to the Democratic Party? I'll take March.