Wow, this is so cool!

Scotusblog has live blogging of the argument before the court.

I notice the Justices already seem to be leaning towards our side in their questions. Also, Scalia asks "Doesn't well-regulated mean well-trained?" I think he gets it!

UPDATE-

It appears that Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and surprisingly Kennedy are all on our side. Kennedy seemed particularly focused on self-defense. Thomas kept quiet today, but I trust he's on our side as well. Barring an unforeseen catastrophe I think we have this won. The problem of course is how narrow of a decision will they hand down?

Hell, even my mother believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but start getting down to specifics of what that means and what "reasonable regulations" are permitted and that right doesn't mean what I take it to mean. I take "shall not be infringed" to mean that a priori restrictions on my keeping & bearing are unconstitutional and that banning certain classes of small-arms is an infringement. Still, this is an incremental process for us. 1st we have to get the court to affirm that the right is one of individuals, not state militias. Once we take this 1st big step we can start targeting specific infringements in the court.

How did we let it get to this point? How did we let it get to the point where we have an uphill battle of using the court system to invalidate egregious infringements?