Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.
The court also upheld that gun licensing "would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun."
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.--2nd amendment, U.S. Constitution
Notice the period. "Shall not be infringed." PERIOD.
To suppose that the requirement that firearms may only be possessed in either a trigger-locked or disassembled state is NOT an infringement of the right to "keep and bear" arms requires a stretch of the imagination worthy of not John or Samuel Adams, but Douglas Adams. Might as well protect yourself with a towel. But gun-control advocates ultimately do not see the illogic in this, nor do they care. Their main concern is reducing the number of guns in the hands of the public--which is directly antithetical to the premise of allowing THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms for the purpose of their defense.
Remember, when writing the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers had this foremost in their minds:
Such a thing cannot be done if, when Tyranny comes, we expect it to wait quietly while we reassemble our firearms and then load them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Now, take this study:
The US population continues to contain at least one firearm for every adult, and ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated. Long guns are the most prevalent type of gun in the US but handgun ownership is widespread. Ownership demographic patterns support findings of previous studies. (emphasis mine)
And that's only taking into account those people who honestly answered that they possess a firearm. Add to that the amount of illegallly owned firearms, and it makes absolutely no sense to hamstring yourself by watering down the 2nd amendment.
Despite Aravosis's contention that two wrongs would somehow make a right, they don't. Good for the court on this one.