Gun-Rights Under Fire

Recently, attorneys for the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) argued that the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms" applies only to militias, not individuals. The judicial ramifications of this case could never be underestimated. Here is what gets me:

1. Most anti-gun lobbyists could care less about the Constitution. They certainly don't care about what it really meant to those who drafted it. What matters most to these activists is what they can "make it mean." A little manipulation here, a little rewording there, a pinch of revisionist history and VOILA! there you have it, what the constitutions "means." This is the kind of "living document" BS that makes the Constitution something of a Mr. Potato Head in the hands of anti-Constitution activists.

2. A clear-eyed view of history would show that the second amendment was intimately tied to the incident where the "lobsterbacks" (Red Coats) attempted to confiscate the "arms" of the citizens of Boston. Yet this is the very thing that the anti-gun activists are attempting to do on a national scale! It may do them well to go back and see how the Framers viewed such a usurpation of the right to bear arms. In fact, they could begin by reading the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, which was drafted by none other than John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson.

3. Most importantly, they should ponder (long and hard) the reason why framers rejected the proposal to place the phrase "for the common defense" at the end of the 2nd amendment.

Bottom Line: The anti-gun lobby has no Constitutional leg to stand on... unless, of course, the Constitution is a Mr. Potato Head.