Here's a quick thought about the Supreme Court's decision affirming the right of Americans to bear arms in their homes...
Liberals constantly use the "well-regulated militia" argument to try to deny law abiding individuals the rights afforded to them by the 2nd Amendment. So, it's reasonable to ask... why did the framers of the constitution choose not to explicitly affirm an individual's right to keep arms for self-defense???
The answer is easy... and it is just as true today as it was over 230 years ago...
The reason why the framers of the constitution did not explicitly affirm an individual's right to keep arms for self-defense was because they felt there was absolutely no need to.
They felt that the right to defend yourself was a God given one... one that certainly could not be legislated by any government that wouldn't call itself tyrannical... and that the only people who could possibly have a problem with someone keeping personal firearms were either...
b). criminals themselves who didn't want to get shot, or,
c). future despots wanting a docile populace to boss around.
So Mr. Liberal... which are you?
Perhaps it's d). all of the above!