I also find it a bit interesting the terms they decided on back them. Notice they say "the right to bear arms" not "the right to arms". One might be able to argue that if the second amendment said "the right to arms" then that would mean the government (ie tax payers) would be responsible to arm any citizen that didn't have the means to arm themself.

A ways back, when Charlie Rangel when in congress, he was working on some law "to recognize a person's right to a home". This got me very worried as I assume the dems were trying to have the tax payers provide homes for people.

I also find it a bit interesting the terms they decided on back them. Notice they say "the right to bear arms" not "the right to arms". One might be able to argue that if the second amendment said "the right to arms" then that would mean the government would be responsible to arm any citizen that didn't have the means to arm themself.

A ways back, when Charlie Rangel when in congress, he was working on some law "to recognize a person's right to a home". This got me very worried as I assume the dems were trying to have the tax payers provide homes for people.