It is often said that the first amendment is not necessary to protect speech friendly to the government. It is necessary precisely for the most offensive speech, such as those pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache. I like Barney Frank's response to the one idiotic audience member -- how many of you gun-grabbers would even think of silencing her? Barney Frank wouldn't. No one in their right mind would even think of telling those protestors to go away. because everybody in their right mind knows they are not only protected by the first amendment, but rightly so, and the very concept of democracy requires they be protected.

Now along come a bunch of nuts wearing guns to political rallies but causing far less disruption than those waving the Obama-mustache picket signs, and all you hoplophobes rear up on your hind legs and say the second amendment doesn't apply. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, mistreating the constitution that way. You don't get to pick and choose which rights are protected any more than you get to choose which individual actions are protected by any individual right.

I will have a lot more respect for gun grabbers when they also want to ban picket signs with Obama wearing a Hitler mustache. They will finally have some logic in their actiosn, albeit wrong logic, but at least they will be consistent.

As things stand, not so much. Inconsistency is the sign of a petty mind in a head wearing blinders in a room where they have turned out the lights..

Is that the only line of Heller you can remember?

It nowhere says the RKBA only applies inside a home. The case in question concerned a home, thus the narrow decision only applies to that case, but the decision is quite clear that it applies outside the home, keep as well as bear.

Of course it is not unlimited. Felons are prohibited, the mentally incompetent are prohibited.

As regards the outright ban of guns, that's EXACTLY what Heller was all about. I suggest that when you classify an enormous segment of the population as insane, you are showing your own mental competence more than theirs.

Guns are such an alien concept to you gun grabbers that you can't see anything normal about open carrying. There are people who open carry everywhere as a matter of course, just as there are people who drive around with bumper stickers everywhere, or wear politcal t-shirts and hats everywhere. Do you expect these first amendment cases to cover up their political slogans just because it might offend others at a political rally? Why should a political rally be any different for the second amendment as opposed to the first amendment?

Get over it. These people who carry everywhere did nothing abnormal by attending a political rally as they attend to the rest of their lives. It is YOU, the gun grabbers and anti-constitutionalists, who need to adjust to the rights in the constitution, just as you have to adjust to the political slogans on cars, t-shirts, and ballcaps which you see every day. You are blowing this all out of propertion simply because you aren't used to exercising that particular constitutional right. Would you have much beyond pity for a person from, say, Saudi Arabia, who is not used to Christians or Jews or Buddhists or atheists, who tried to ban all religious speech or practice? No, you would expect them to adjust to the rights guaranteed by the constitution. So I say to you, get used to it, it is a right in the constitution, and your ignorance of that document is no excuse.

You don't get to choose which parts of the constitution apply to people you don't like any more than they get to choose which parts apply to you.

No one pointed agun at Obama, any more than anyone made as if to throw their picket sign at Obama, and no more than any driver revved his engine and made as if to run into the crowd. Did you have any kind of point, or are you just jabbering?

So you want to start making oddball associations, eh? Would you be offended if I associate you with King George III, who tried to take guns from the colonists? How about if I associate you with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and all the other tyrants who disarmed their populations?

Or maybe I could associate you with goldfish, who drink water, now there's a productive comparison. It at least has a real connection to you.

Or maybe you do mean the Palestinians and just don't realize it. Do you agree that one of the fundamental characteristics of a nation is the ability to defend itself? How do you square that with the latest Israeli proposal for a Palestinian state as long as it has no army and can't defend itself? Of course, that probably makes me a Nazi in your eyes, which means you must think I hate the town hall protesters who think Obama is Hitler.

We could go down the road of ridiclous connections all day long and just go around in circles. Why don't you pick a goal before opening your trap to spew random nonsense?