[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I tend to agree with you. However, I am uncomfortable with something as basic as the right to the means of self-defense being left to the whim of 50% + 1.

Is the right to the means of self-defense any less fundamental than the right to integrated education? If not, shouldn't school desegregation have been left up to a vote? Of course, I disagree with that.

How about marriage-like contractual rights for homosexuals being left up to a vote?

Amendment 10 states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

From the perspective of Liberty (my opinion), a right reserved to the States is a right that can be modified by the legislative process within that state (by the people through their elected representatives). A right reserved to The People is a right not subject to majority vote, which is why we have an independent judiciary, to strike down legislation that the majority favors.

The libertarian view is that the tyranny of the majority is much more insidious than the tyranny of the dictator, because the tyrant masquerades as popular opinion.

Back to gun control. I don not now, nor have I ever owned a firearm. However, if I determine that I need one to protect my family or property, that is not the business of the collective until I initiate violence, in which case the law of the land applies.

You might suggest that protecting me from violence is the job of the police (I agree), but it is neither feasible nor desirable for there to be so large a police presence to protect all citizens at all times.

Finally, I view gun control as a "feel good" issue for a politician. Like the war on drugs, it simply does not work.