Red: Leave it to someone inside the beltway to tell us the extent of our freedoms. Blue: The only limit to the right to keep and bear arms is that the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. Period. Just because you may be a hoplophobe doesn't mean that the rest of the citizenry must have their rights infringed...it only means that perhaps you should seek help for your mental infirmity. Green: Those in your local seem to be of that persuasion. Pink: The people were not afraid of their fellow citizens being armed...they were afraid of the armed thugs in the employ of the crown. Being a member of the new crown I can see why you don't want to acknowledge that. FYI, nothing in the DOL pertains to any aspect of the 2nd Amendment, which obviously did not yet exist...the DOL is relevant in it's recognition of our unalienable rights...one of which is the right to defend ourselves, our families and our communities by means at least as good as those used by government or criminals. The 2nd Amendment is merely an enumeration of that right...perhaps you need to read the countless essays debating not only the ratification of the Constitution, but also the ratification of the Bill of Rights to understand what the Bill of Rights are. You seem to be a very good example of what some of the Federalists used as an argument against a separate bill of rights....the argument that some ninny might take it as a granter of rights and thus the only rights we had.