Good to know that you know where she stands. Maybe I should read dkos from time to time so that I get the memos before I make the mistake to say that I do not know that Kagan is going to be to the right of Stevens.

I never thought Stevens was a staunch liberal, but then again I am not a constitutional scholar.  

Stevens was considered center if not somewhat conservative when he joined the court. He shifted to the left. Why would one assume that Kagan will move the court to the right.

Sorry I just do not get it. But, then again I can understand why people are saying that they are certain about Kagan, as I was certain that Roberts, who we supposedly knew nothing about, was a right wing activist.

I think it if history shows anything clearly it is that the 2nd Amendment was enacted to reassure states, who had been loosely tied together under the Articles of Confederation, that they could take up arms if the new strong federal government provided for in the Constitution became too overbearing.  The amendment provided that the federal government could not infringe an individual's right to bear arms so that free states could maintain a "well regulated" militia.  Well regulated by whom?  The individual free states.

Unfortunately for 19th Century afficionados of the 2nd Amendment, Lincoln had other ideas and used federal forces to crush the rebellion of certain state militias.  Since then, because the 2nd Amendment has not been repealed in law, people have struggled to give meaning to an amendment that the Civil War had effectively transformed into desuetude.  Hence, we're told it's for hunters, or to insure people can defend their life & property.  Unlike the 18th Amendment, voting age and presidential succession, the Consitution was never amended to change the fact since established that states cannot raise militias to rebel again Uncle Sam, notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment or anything else in the Constitution that could have been and were used to justify the Confederacy.  

I don't believe the Constitution provides, or was ever intended to provide, a right to bear arms so fundamental that it overrides the police powers of your state or locality.  I base that opinion, as the majority does theirs, on a reading of history, a reading that I would argue is far more in line with the facts.  The point was self defense of the states against the federal government, not personal self defense against other individuals.

And if the right to "bear" arms can be restricted as you say it can, states can strictly limit public carrying of arms, then it sems to me this whole notion of a fundamental right is questionable; to "bear" means "to carry."

I don't believe the court is ever correct or incorrect, it is either well reasoned and/or wise or not.  A majority of justices decides what the law  states and that is that until the issue is revisted, or the statute or Constitutional provision is modified.  It used to be a well established principle of the Supreme Court not to address Constitutional issues when, as here, it can be avoided.  This Court reached for Heller and McDonald in order to proclaim a new interpretation of the Second Amendment based on a flimsy presentation of history.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.  Hunters in the rural areas of Vt, NH, Alabama and Colorado were in no way threatened by the laws enacted by the City of Chicago.  The residents of Chicago and other densely populated cities and towns are threatened by this Supreme Court decision.

Five or more votes at SCOTUS is the law, nothing more, nothing less.  So we are, at the end of the day, left with the rule of men and, increasingly, women.