Note to gun opponents: Guns do not kill people, people do.
I'm a strong supporter of gun rights. But that line is perhaps the most ridiculous political slogan in political discourse today; please never utter it again.
As to the actual subject matter: On the threshold question of whether the Second Amendment protects any meaningful private right, this decision was so obviously sound, that it's frankly somewhat disheartening that four justices could dissent on that point.
Curious. Did you read his opinion in each case; judiciously examine the historical materials; contrast his reasoning with various competing arguments; and
then arrive at this conclusion? Or did you simply pick the result that strikes you as more intuitively just, and assume it must be correct? (There is admittedly middle ground, but few seem to occupy it.)
