Nuts and Bolts on Gun Issue

While in Houston, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms says that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling "won't change much." Well duh! The case is District of Columbia v Heller. Read it if you like. That quote "won't change much" says it all. I know the usual suspects are running around with their routine arguments like "slippery slope," "gonna be the wild west," etc. If you'll remember, when Texas first passed the concealed handgun carry law years ago the whack jobs were saying the exact same thing. Guess what, they were dead wrong then. They will be dead wrong now. The bare factor of these gun laws are the people. Law abiding citizens should be able to choose whether they want to own guns or not. Why would anyone have a problem with law abiding citizens carrying guns in their cars? Why would anyone have a problem with law abiding citizens owning guns in their own homes? One thing that anti-gun people will never understand is that banning guns only empowers criminals. Since criminals disobey the law to begin with, why are they going to stop carrying guns now? Another point to consider, an unarmed populace is easier to control. Let's say a government oversteps its bounds and becomes socialist/communist leaning. Who then protects the populace from such a government? Another point to consider, at the end of World War II, a Japanese commander was asked why Japan didn't invade the west coast of the United States. We were not prepared for an attack and vulnerable (hence Pearl Harbor). The commander responded that he knew citizens had guns in their homes and had contests and prizes for marksmanship. Something to chew on isn't it?