Gun grabbers point to restrictions on the First Amendment as proof that restrictions to the Second can be Constitutionally acceptable. Sit down and drop whatever is in your hands. Take a deep breath. I agree with them.

The example is always "You can't yell fire in a movie theater". They are wrong. You can if there is a fire. Just the same, you shouldn't discharge your firearm in a movie theater unless there is a credible and sufficient threat and you won't hit any innocents.

Just as there should be no restrictions on the ownership of printing presses, there should be no restrictions for the law abiding on firearm ownership. And just as there are restrictions on what you print (there still are aren't there? child pornography, etc.), there should be restrictions on where you discharge your firearm.

Now the grabbers will say that the exercise of First Amendment is fundamentally different than the exercise of the Second Amendment. The First relates to the action of speech. The Second relates to the ownership of firearms. But again, they are wrong. They forget about the "bear Arms" part. The action of speech and the action of bearing arms are very analogous. Since possession is difficult without ownership and control, no government has any business controlling what I can buy or whether or not I carry it. This probably does not extend to concealed carry, as some states specifically exclude it from their Constitutional rights (see the Colorado Constitution Article 2 Section 13). But, from the Baretta Bobcat to the Benelli M4 to the Colt M4, the exposed carrying of firearms should not be restricted in any fashion.

For you hunters out there, don't get all queasy on me now. The Second Amendment is about the defense of self and freedom. It has more to do with military firearms than any .270 Remington 700. Forget what you have heard about Miller and read it yourself. If you don't have several hours (who does?), here is the money line. What it implies is that military weapons are directly covered by the Second Amendment.