The Supreme Court of the United States yesterday made a decision striking the DC handgun ban. As I have always wanted to own an AK-47 assault rifle, I support that decision.

I’ll clarify. In the assault rifle world, the M-16 is a prissy primadonna of a prom date, while the AK-47 is the kind of gal you marry. It is durable, sexy in a brutal kind of way, and holds cartridges as long as Hulk Hogan’s middle finger that can pulp bear flesh. And while I don’t buy for a minute that Rambo could have burst from concealment underwater firing the persnickety M60 machinegun, he might have extruded from unprocessed waste with an AK-47 and I’d believe it could still fire. What’s more, it’s an iconic weapon - the death dealing device that embodies the post-colonial, over-proliferating late-20th century; the gun of the mujahadeen, the Soviet, the African warlord.

As for why the Supreme Court ruling inspires me to believe I’ll some day own one of those homicidal fashion plates, is the basis of its holding - that it is not a collective right, but an individual right, to bear arms.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.”

Hooray! And considering that the DC handgun ban was all about restricting one type of firearm, and thus was found Unconstitional based on this ruling, this ruling therefore opens the door for all firearms.

The decision goes on to pick away at the holding in the ruling opinion, in typically pusillanimous fashion, but I don’t buy it, as it goes contrary to the core of the holding. Scalia, writing the ruling opinion, specifically says that felons and the mentally ill won’t be able to get guns, and that concealed weapons don’t apply.

To that, I ask - and many ask with me - why not?

Everybody wants “strict constructionists” and not “liberal judges who legislate from the bench,” right? That’s certainly the kind of judge you’ve preened about being. So let me introduce you to the strict construction, Justice Scalia:

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.

And here is your ruling again:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.”

Plain as day - it says nothing about, “except for the blind,” or “except for felons,” or “except when its kept in the trunk of your car.”

The holding held, as strict constructionism does, that you’re not allowed to add anything to the law. Meaning, no exceptions as to whether an individual has a criminal record, or is insane, or doesn’t need a coaxial anti-aircraft machinegun for home defense. No exceptions based on statistics that say inner cities like Washington, DC are being decimated by gang violence often involved handguns, or complaints from the police. That was the basis of the ban - a specific solution for a specific problem - but that’s not what the strict construction of the Constitution is about: It’s about general liberties that protect us from those specific solutions.

Perhaps the Court would have a platform to stand on in regulating based on criminal record or deadliness of weapon if it had ruled that militias had anything to do with it. After all, that would be about collective security; protecting the state at the individual’s expense. But they ruled just the opposite. For interests of “collective security,” see the DC handgun ban, now going down in flames.

Some may call this “reductio ad absurdum” - the old Latin phrase about how some logical arguments lead to ridiculous ends if followed through completely, and thus refute the basis of the argument. I, and the Supreme Court, call it a Constitutional liberty of the United States.

They may think the cat is not out of the bag - that they can exercise some ridiculous double-standard in cases like the Assault Weapon Ban, waiting periods and possession by felons. In truth, considering the pernicious, self-interested behavior of many of their rulings - which determine the logical meaning of the Constitution but hit traditionally powerless citizens with restrictions all the same - I wouldn’t put it past them. But this much is certain: The Supremes are going to be a busy bunch in the future, as organizations like the NRA are going to use this simple holding to challenge all manner of gun laws.

The Constitution is at last being taken at its word; the law is at last on their side. And my only worry now when it comes to the queenly AK is how much shipping and handling from Liberia is going to cost me.