Some Pro-Gun Quotes....

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens .... from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved." - Aristotle

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Unknown

Michael Moore, Don Fowler and Hurricane Gustav

Michael Moore isn't the only one who considers the timing of an impending natural disaster relative to the Republican National Convention evidence of divine intervention and proof that God exists.

We now have former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler getting in line behind Michael Moore (not that there is much room behind Moore):



These people claim to be concerned for the average working American, especially those who were affected by hurricane Katrina and are now evacuating from hurricane Gustav. I HAVE to call bullshit!! Anyone who thinks about gaining political points during a potential natural disaster only cares about one thing. And its not the average American.

Zero experience

John McCain has chosen the very popular first-term Governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate for the 2008 election.

Obama's campaign immediately came out and claimed that Palin has zero experience in some areas: "'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,' Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement." Does that mean that the Democrats have put someone with zero experience even closer to the presidency?

Maybe I am just one of those bitter people who cling to their guns too much for Mr. Clean and Articulate's liking.

Obama on guns

From Neal Boortz and Nealz Nuze: Obama on guns: "Just how does The Chosen One feel about the 2nd Amendment? After the Supreme Court ruled on the DC gun ban Obama was somewhat trapped. His previous position in favor of the ban was inoperative, so he had to come up with a new position. So ... what would that be? The Big BO's position on guns is that nobody in this country should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon unless they are retired law enforcement officers or members of the U.S. military. We could phrase this another way: Nobody can carry a concealed weapon unless they work for the government as a member of the U.S. military or civilian law enforcement, or used to work for the government as a police officer. This is Obama, folks. Privileges for government and those who work for government ... but for the common man, not so much.

Ahhhhh .... But he's so suave, so debonair, and he speaks so well! It doesn't really matter what he says, but he sure says it good!"

I could not have said it better myself.....

Obama criticizes Clarence Thomas' experience

A friend and fellow blogger posted about the following video where BHO claimed that if he was president at the time, he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS. BHO almost said that Clarence Thomas was a bad choice at the time because of inexperience. Now that's the pot calling the kettle....oh nevermind, I was about to be politically incorrect.



Interestingly, having less that 200 days in the US Congress is enough experience to be the president of the United States.

The "fairness" doctrine

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content : "There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and 'government dictating content policy.'

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks. "

A huge concern among conservatives? What about anyone who despises the idea of the government dictating what we listen to (and watch and read online)? How about anyone who thinks that the UNfairness doctrine interferes with the freemarket and unfairly dictates what radio stations (non-government entities) broadcast?

Whose fault is it that the radio stations broadcast what earns money? Radio stations are businesses built to make a profit (Oooooh, "evil" profits). Since liberals failed at talk radio they want to make things "fair" by using the power of the government to "even the playing field." Is Congress going to start dictating that rap stations give equal air time to classical and country music....just for the sake of "fairness?" What a bunch of complete and total oppressive government crap.

Comrades, everyone be quiet and let's all be good citizens!

Obama the Rock Star

While I am no fan of John McCain, I have serious concerns about Barack Obama and what Obama wants to do as president. When I ask people specifics about why they're voting for Obama, I get answers such as, "he's very eloquent" and he's "for change." Fine...but what type of changes? Most Obama supporters that I've spoken with don't seem to be able to name any specifics about the Obama platform other than his "immediate" withdrawal from Iraq (which is really a 16-18 month redeployment - significantly longer than "immediate"). Perhaps I am asking the wrong people, such as those in this McCain campaign video.


Ok, ok, Obama does have very soft eyes.

Jon Voight is correct on an Obama presidency

Mr. Voight recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times and, in my opinion, Voight has a big set of nads. Knowing that he would upset the liberal apple cart that is Hollywood, Mr. Voight sees Obama for exactly what Mr. Change really is, a socialist.

While I do not agree with everything that Mr. Voight writes, Mr. Voight's overall premise that Mr. Change is a socialist is, in my humble opinion, right on.

VOIGHT: My concerns for America Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people: "We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero. This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way (emphasis mine)."

Hollywood will likely boycott Mr. Voight and he will certainly have trouble finding work. I give him a ton of credit for taking a very unpopular stance among his socialist peers. Kudos Mr. Voight.

Civilian casualties not condemned because of non-involvement of "the Joooooooos"

From Foxnews.com: South Ossetia Situation a 'Humanitarian Catastrophe:

"The Russian planes appeared to target a military base on the outskirts of Gori which sustained hits, but they also struck living quarters nearby.

Georgia, a staunch U.S. ally, launched a major offensive Friday to retake control over South Ossetia. Russia, which has close ties to the region and has peacekeepers there, responded by sending in armed convoys.

About 1,500 people have been killed and the death toll continued to rise, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists Saturday. The figure could not be independently confirmed, but people who fled the fighting said hundreds of civilians had probably died.

Witnesses said that most of the provincial capital, Tskhinvali, was in ruins and bodies were everywhere. Television footage showed burned out Georgian tanks, and sporadic fighting continued overnight and into Saturday."

There are numerous pictures in the media documenting injured and dead civilians and burning buildings which are nowhere near the conflict zone.

I find it absolutely fascinating that moonbat left wing groups (ISM, the media, add your favorite pinko group here: _______) don't appear to be condemning these civilian casualties. Especially since you could argue that collateral damage of this nature could imply the civilian deaths were no accident. Or that the Russians were bring too "heavy-handed." I guess that civilian casualties in this conflict are not such an issue since the casualties were not inflicted by the "evil Jooooooooos."

How simple is this really?

How simple is this? To me, extremely simple......

From Neal Boortz's website: HOW SIMPLE IS THIS REALLY?

"So ... you're a Barack Obama supporter. You can hardly wait until that magical moment when you can walk into a voting booth and cast your vote for him. Fine. Whatever works for you, right? But can you stop for just a moment and tell me if this really is going to work for you?

Let's talk about your job. Who do you work for. Are you part of that 70% of Americans who work for a small business? If you're newly hired, is your new job part of the 80% of all new jobs that have been created in the private sector by small businessmen? If so, your boss .. the man you work for; the person who signs your paychecks .. that is the very person that is right in the crosshairs for your candidate's proposals for tax increases.

So, before you cast that vote ... know what is at stake. Know that Obama wants to raise taxes – and raise them substantially – on the man or woman you work for. Are you absolutely certain this is not going to have any adverse affect on your job? Tell you what ... why don't you ask him?

Something to think about."

Ayn Rand quote of the day

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Obama's emergency rebate checks; we're the government and we're here to help

Obama proposes $1,000 emergency rebate checks. "ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to Republican rival John McCain's call for more offshore drilling in coastal states like Florida."

Who in the hell does Mr. Change think will end up paying the cost of a windfall profit tax on the "evil" oil companies? Here's the answer: the cost of the windfall profit tax will be passed onto the consumer. Get ready to pay even more for a gallon of gas all because of Mr. Change's "help." When the price of gasoline goes up even more and we use all of our emergency rebate money to pay for higher prices at the pump, what's next, government fixed gasoline prices?

How about we all get tax reductions of $1000 instead? We desperately need tax reform in this country (numerous countries have successfully implemented flat taxes) and, of course, the government could stop being so damn wasteful. Tax reform and a more fiscally responsible government....no that's a plan.


And that's not all, Obama also wants to increase the capital gains tax:

From Nealz Nuze: IS THIS THE TYPE OF CHANGE YOU WANT? "It seems that Wall Street is already reacting to the prospect of an Obama presidency; this according to some folks who know a lot more about Wall Street than I do. The reaction, by the way, is not positive. For some reason known but to God these investors don't particularly like the idea of higher capital gains taxes and increased taxes on the American investor class. Well ... that's change for you. I guess we're going to have to live with it. The price we pay for The Chosen One to be our next leader."

Increased capital gains taxes will hurt the average American just like the windfall profit tax. I wonder if Obama has a bumper sticker on his car that says, "Honk if you love taxes."

Obama is a Marxist. I am no fan of John McCain (or GW for that matter) but an Obama presidency would be bad for America. We all want change, but Obama in the oval office would be a change for the worst. I'd rather put of with 4 more years of the same crap than have America creep closer towards communism.

NOBAMA.com

nobamablog.blogspot.com

I Hate Eminent domain

One of the abusive powers of government that I despise the most is eminent domain. Just writing the words makes my blood boil. Neal Boortz had a segment on his radio program this morning with Don Corace. Don Corace has written a book called "Government Pirates" which was published by Harper Collins and can also be found at amazon.com.

For anyone who enjoys property rights, I think this book may be a necessary read. I have just ordered my copy.

For more information on eminent domain and what can be done about it, visit the "Castle Coalition."

The time for liberty

I will vote for Bob Barr unless a vote for Barr ends up being a vote for Obama.

Check out the cast of great Americans in this video: Dr. Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Dr. Ron Paul, JFK and Ayn Rand......wow!



An Ayn Rand appearance followed by Ron Paul. Whew!

No more trans fats for you!!!

At least not in California.

Schwarzenegger Terminates Trans Fat in Calif.: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it official: California will be the first trans-fat free state in the nation. All-natural palm, rice and soybean oils will soon be king, and life in the Golden State will be forever altered. The California legislature pushed the bill through last week, and Schwarzenegger signed it into law Friday, July 25. The ban will require food providers to begin phasing out trans fat oils by July 1, 2009. Thereafter, noncompliance with the ban will result in fines of up to $1,000."

[sarcasm on]

That's so friggin' awesome that some governments are willing to protect us from ourselves by telling us what we can and can't eat. I'm so glad that they're making up our own minds for us. What a relief...this whole "personal responsibility" thing was starting to wear me out.

/sarcasm off

More pics of our "machine gun"

Here are some more pictures of our Kel-Tec P-3AT .380 semi-automatic bottom loading "machine gun." Well, a machine gun according to the person who denied Dick Heller's gun permit.

Just so everyone knows how small machine guns have become (at least in the eyes of some in D.C.) I've taken these pictures of our "machine gun" next to some everyday household items for perspective.

DC rejects Dick Heller's Handgun Application

From WUSA9.com, DC rejects handgun application: "Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit."

Check out WHY his application was denied.

"But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has (a) seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns."

How dumb. I didn't realize that I had 3 machine guns in my home. All of my three semi-autos LOAD FROM THE BOTTOM.

Let's take a page out of Benjamin9's book and go to Webster's dictionary to get the accepted definition of "machine gun." "Machine gun: a gun for sustained rapid fire that uses bullets; broadly : an automatic weapon."

Hmmmm, semi-automatic weapons can neither be fired in a "sustained rapid manner" nor are these weapons "automatic" (hence the name, SEMI-automatic, you big stupid D.C. morons!). If semi-automatic handguns are machine guns then could somebody please explain to me why in the hell only one bullet comes out when I pull the trigger?!?!

I bet that like my SEMI-automatic weapons, Dick Heller's SEMI-automatic handgun can not shoot in a sustained, rapid fire manner nor is it an "automatic" weapon. But according to a bunch of illogical idiotic morons in D.C. all of the weapons mentioned above are machine guns.

Look! My bottom loading Kel-Tec .380 machine gun!



Anti-gunners will even twist the English language in order to get rid of "evil" firearms.

DISTANTMIRROR21: WORDS OF LIBERTY

Benjamin9 over at DISTANTMIRROR21 has posted an excellent analysis of the language of the second amendment and what the words that make up the second amendment really mean.

To give credit where credit is due, I have reposted Ben9's blog entry in its entirety and included links to the posting, lest I leave something out.

"The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute violated the "Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be ac companied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege."

"All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote. Thus, in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "to hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; to have in custody for security or preservation." "Bear" was "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat." And "arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body." Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms"suggest a right to hand-held arms that a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." "Regulated" was defined as "subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite." "Security" was "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind" and "free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "a political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history, an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean government power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy-to-understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.

Stephen P. Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at the Independent Institute (www.independent.org) in Oakland, Calif., is the author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

This blog entry is a must read for anyone who feels compelled to set anti-gun commies straight about the constitutional protection of an individual's right to gun ownership.

DISTANTMIRROR21: WORDS OF LIBERTY

Angelina and Brad are gun owners?

Apparently, yes. This may be old news but in a recent interview with the U.K. Daily Mail, Angelina Jolie said a number of interesting things about guns.

“I bought original, real guns of the type we used in ‘Tomb Raider’ for security. Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one.......Yes, I'd be able to use it if I had to. I could handle myself. I think there are certain combat skills that would come out....... If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."

I concur 100%, but sadly, my guns are not as cool as the Tomb Raider variety.

There also seems to be an atypical recognition of there being good and evil in the world (atypical of Hollywood, anyway, save the 'evil' George Bush). From NewsMax.com: "Jolie is raising her children with an understanding, too, that the world contains good and evil." Jolie says, 'It's just not a reality in this day and age to say that I'm never going to let my kids watch a movie that has a gun in it. It's important to know that this exists.'"

I hope her kids are as accurate with a .45 as mine will be.

Will the United Nations be able to help?

I highly doubt it.

There are tensions between Cambodia and Thailand over land. This piece of land contains the ancient Preah Vihear Hindu temple. Thai troops have apparently crossed into Cambodian territory and both sides have deployed thousands of troops.

Tensions High as Cambodia Claims Thailand Has Violated Territory in Temple Dispute: "Cambodia complained to the U.N. Security Council that Thai forces have violated its territory near a World Heritage Site temple, as more than 4,000 troops from the two sides were deployed in the border region Sunday."

If the UN manages to help settle this dispute I will be pleasantly surprised. But when I look at UN "successes" in Rwanda, the Sudan, and the middle east (Iran has certainly "slowed" their nuclear weapons program) excuse me for being skeptical.

Dick Heller is running for the U.S. House of Representatives

Plaintiff In D.C. Gun Ban Case To Run For U.S. House Seat: "Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's strict 32-year-old handgun ban, announced his candidacy on Thursday for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Heller, 66, is seeking the seat currently held by Eleanor Holmes Norton. He is gathering signatures to run on the ballot as a libertarian candidate.

Heller, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court."

In regards to the previous sentence, I know there are security guards who carry weapons at the capitol in order to protect the politicians, the court justices and everyone else who works at the capitol. How ironic that in D.C. only people who work on capitol hill can use force to protect themselves but not the people living there. Oh wait, that changed on 26 June 2008.

I still think that we should celebrate "Dick Anthony Heller Day" every 26 June.

Once again the Israelis give up too much and get too little

After Israeli reservists return in coffins, VIPs embrace their families: "Israeli media indulged in maudlin reportage about the 'return of the sons' and the 'reuniting of the families.' But the shameful truth was otherwise. Israel had given in to a deal that surrendered a child-murderer to Hezbollah and received in return only the bodies of soldiers that Hezbollah itself was likely to have murdered in captivity. All of the solemn ceremonies could not quite conceal the humiliation."

Jubilant Arab leaders, including Abbas, welcome child-killer Kuntar as hero: "West Bank chieftain Mahmoud Abbas congratulated the family of Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, freed on Wednesday with four Hezbollah fighters. Abbas welcomed the swap and congratulated the families of the 'liberated prisoners.' Kuntar has been imprisoned in Israel since 1979, after he carried out one of the grisliest attacks in Israeli history - killing a father in front of his 4-year-old daughter, and then killing the girl by crushing her skull with his rifle butt."

Again, the Israelis mourn their losses and the terrorist scum celebrate the killers of innocent children. Moral equivalency my ass!

We'll miss you Tony...

Foxnews.com: Tony Snow, Former White House Press Secretary and FOX news anchor, dies at 53.

Tony Snow died after a long bout with cancer at a very young age. Tony and his family are in our thoughts and prayers.

A new gun link

I have just added a new and very interesting gun link to this page: OpenCarry.org.

I was pleasantly surprised at the number of states that allow open carry. Sadly, my home state is not among those on this list.

OpenCarry.org is definitely worth checking out.

Does the US Constitution protect individual gun ownership?

In a word, abso-frickin'-lutely!

First of all, there is that pesky amendment #2 that gun haters dislike. Here is some of the language in the amendment that hopefully clears things up for gun-haters: "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." For ease in understanding my interpretation of the second amendment and to clarify that I do not claim any special "rights" which allow me to ignore specific parts of the Constitution, I have highlighted the part which I consider the most important (and only I, I know that I cannot speak for anyone else or imply anything other than MY OWN OPINION). As for the first 13 words, in my opinion the "militia" part does not mitigate or limit the individual right of gun ownership as others have suggested (again this is only my humble, twisted and potentially arrogant opinion).

Second, the bill of rights is ALL about the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. Why would the part about guns be any different? This suggests that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that it is protected by more than solely the second amendment.

Third, various people have claimed (and I agree) that there is protection of individual privacy provided by the Constitution. Privacy Right Unlisted, but Perfectly Clear: "We do have a constitutional right to privacy. The right to speak as you wish, to pray as you wish, to be secure in your home against warrantless searches or seizures, are all based on the same underlying right to be left alone by government. The right to privacy, in fact, animates the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights included. The drafters of those documents felt no need to state what in their minds was already so obvious."

My point is thus, the second amendment along with the right to privacy held throughout the Constitution, in my opinion, provides us the right to own firearms. The paradox to me is that many who support the Constitutional right to privacy protects things like the right to an abortion, the right to free speech, gay marriage, etc. but not gun ownership. That seems a bit duplicitous to me. But what do I know?? Many would argue that I don't know much, I wonder if they have been talking with my wife?