[I'vebeenduped]

I was driving to work today thinking of ways to strengthen our argument for pro 2A. I do not, for the life of me, understand how the antis can want to disarm us with rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia in place. Granted, I am no lawyer. I don't pretend or even want to be. Still, I know that court is less based on fact than it is emotion and feelings for the day. I have heard it compared to going to Las Vegas, it all depends where the ball stops. Compelling arguments certainly help but not always. At any rate, if someone is in the know, doesn't Warren v. District of Columbia help rather than hinder our cause?? Please, try to explain this without speaking to much "lawyer." I would appreciate any and all input. Thanks,
David