Yesterday's Supreme Court decision is both a rational interpretation of the Second Amendment and a victory for civil rights.

When the Founding Fathers spoke of a militia, they spoke of ordinary citizens who answered a call to arms during the Revolution.  They were not trained as soldiers and they were given little if any training before being sent into battle -- there was no time to train them in marksmanship.  Their effectiveness depended upon their ability to fire their muskets and hit the enemy.  The Founding Fathers clearly recognized that they could not have raised a militia if the population had not only owned muskets and pistols, but also had developed skill in using firearms safely and effectively.

Despite the fact that we have a National Guard and Reserve today as well as the time and resources to train the soldiers who volunteer to serve in those forces, the effectiveness of the men and women we call into service is enhanced by their prior training.  Training is much easier and the skills developed in training are much higher when the soldiers come into the training with civilian backgrounds that enhance their ability to develop higher skill levels quickly.  Just as experience in driving cars and playing video games helps soldiers learn to control drones and robots and drive trucks more quickly, experience in firearm safety and usage helps the soldiers to improve their firearm safety and marksmanship skills.

The role of firearm ownership in recruiting an effective militia from the general population to resist a foreign invader remains essentially the same as it was at the time the Second Amendment was written and as it was in 1812.  We certainly feel more secure within our borders today but we know that a foreign invasion, though unlikely, remains possible.  In the event of a foreign invasion today, we would have no more time to train citizens for service in a milita than we did during the Revolution.

The Court wisely left open the question of the scope of appropriate regulation of our right to own and use firearms.  Clearly regulation is appropriate.  We must never forget that firearms are tools for killing.  They make killing easier, quicker, more efficient and sadly more remote.  We must drive out the romantic notion of firearm ownership that prevails in the media today and replace it with the sober acknowledgement that a citizen who owns a firearm must be held responsible and accountable for the safe and appropriate storage and use of a lethal weapon.  We must also acknowledge that the right to own, keep and use firearms comes with a terrible price in murder, suicide and fatal accident.  We cannot afford the romantic notion of gun ownerhip that prevails today.

Now that our Supreme Court has wisely settled the basic question, we need to move on to the more important and urgent issues of education and appropriate regulation.