And when I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
--Happiness is a Warm Gun,
Surely there shall not one of these men
of this evil generation see that good land
which I swore to give to your fathers
We perceive an image of the Truth
and possess nothing but falsehood
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that Americans in all 50 states have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense (McDonald v. City of Chicago).
U.S. citizens now have a court-mandated right to do exactly what what our Federal government does in the name of defense: We have an inalienable right to shoot others. It's official: We now have a license to kill in in self-defense -- not a news flash to those who have seen Charlie Bronson or Clint Eastwood movies. (It seems Afghanistan arrived at this moment somewhat in advance of us.)
This is an interesting decision as it removes the myth imposed on gun ownership since around 1940 that personal weapons were mainly for hunting purposes. This had became a national attitude following the gangster era and the sensationalized Valentine's Day Massacre.
On the wave of public outcry, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) disallowed the citizenry from owning military-type weapons, and U.S. vs. Miller (1939) was the first address by the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment. The "sporting function" of weapons was becoming institutionalized.
In order to reflect that sporting standard, assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and sniper rifles were officially frowned upon. But in truth, firearms laws mainly covered only the cosmetics of weaponry: No high capacity magazines, no bayonet studs, no flash suppressors. Non-sporting weapons were still legal, though suspect.
Now, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Founding Fathers by acknowledging that we can kill people with our firearms, be it rifle, pistol or shotgun; we may kill to protect ourselves. It follows that we are legally permitted to possess and carry non-sporting weapons.
Florida was avant-garde in this respect (though almost no others) when, under former Governor Jeb, we saw the passage of Castle Doctrine. This decision sanctioned the use of weapons against those who would trod uninvited upon a man's, um, castle.
You could shoot him, though the rules did not address whether one should shoot to kill. Nonetheless, he became fair game, changing the perception of fair game from those with feathers and fur to those lacking said cover.
It would be absurd to say that we have the right to defend ourselves via firearms unless we also have the right to bear those same arms. The two concepts must necessarily co-exist to have practicability. This then has further ramifications.
If I have the right to defend myself with a firearm, how do the states justify forcing citizens to pay fees for their right to exercise their freedoms? Paying for the right seems alien to the concept of rights.
At least now I can legitimately own guns for the sole purpose of killing my fellow man, no longer having to justify the rifle by my bed as a squirrel gun.