We don't win any points talking about 'gun rights'. We need to define the battlespace: These are Civil Rights. Basic Human Rights. And anyone who tries to take those away from us is taking away our rights.

There's no rational point in having different catagories of 'rights'.

How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving!

Leopards can't change their spots. Only a fool believes anything said when the folks saying it are trying to maintain their power. And it is all about power.

True, but if we make it about civil rights, they can't do much about limiting them.....

While FWB has a valid point, Flighterdoc is right. To sell it to the public you need to make it about civil rights. If the public views it as civil rights they will end up forcing the politician to follow - just because of what FWB states; they want to kept their job!

The majority opinion in Heller is a good primer on the history of the human right of self-defense, and why/how the issue was addressed in law before the broad use of firearms. By extension, the issue will be valid when and if firearms are obsolteted as the most effective means of individual self-defense.

That heartbeat in your chest is a unique gift to be treasured, whether or not you attribute it to God. No other mortal should take it from you illegally or to do evil.

Can you see Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Jack Reed, Boxer, Durbin, etc., campaigning for the Second Amendment?

Neither me.

I can see them in line at the unemployment office....

At least in my dreams