What About 'the Children'?

Apparently five members of the Supreme Court have not completely lost their minds. By a (frighteningly close) 5-4 vote the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (which states: "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.") actually means that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The other four either a) believe that the amendment actually meant that the rights of the militia to bear arms or b) do not care what it says. Scalia dealt with the militia argument in his majority opinion (some highlights here and here). The case in question was with regard to Washington D.C. ( many parts of which I wouldn't care to visit, armed or unarmed) which had placed a complete ban on handgun possession within the city. Of course this only affected those who are inclined to obey the law in the first place. What amused me the most today were the reactions to what seems to me an obvious verdict. In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens seems to show open contempt for the Constitution saying the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons". Mind boggling. Yeah, that's absolutely the choice they made. Limiting the "tools" "available" to the State is kind of the purpose of the entire document. Have we learned nothing from the last century about the danger of governments with too many "tools available" to them? If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, ( Jefferson in particular) they tend to be way more extremist than me on this issue. What's more disturbing in that statement to me is the "over 200 years ago" part. He seems to be implying that because the Constitution was written a long time ago, it shouldn't really apply. There is a system in place for dealing with obsolete portions of the Constitution. It's called "amendment", but that would require actually trusting the people and our elected representatives to do something right; much easier just to legislate from the bench. The mayor of D.C. in full-blown histrionics said "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence". I mean think of the street gangs. What are they supposed to do now that someone might be able to shoot back? Aren't we too moral of a society for this? Isn't the civilized thing to do if someone is kicking in my front door to call the police and ask them to send another young man over to put his life on the line while attempting to capture the person(s) who murdered me in the ensuing ten minutes it took the police to arrive? I mean we've banned certain narcotics and now nobody can get ahold of those. I have no reason to believe a gun ban isn't equally effective.
The fact that four justices didn't see it this way gives me more reason to want to keep the Obamunists out of power this fall.