There's a reason they're called "rights".

Ah, remember those good old days when black folk had to sit in the back of the bus?  Remember those peacful times when women didn't have the right to vote?  When marriage was between a man and a women?

Of course, many of us look back on those times now and cringe - those of us who care about rights, that is.  Yet, in those days, if we had polled Americans we would likely have seen large majorities that felt women should be home, barefoot and pregnant, that they hardly had the wherewithal to think rationally, let alone vote (as much as I support rights, I still wonder about Mika Brzezinski).  I am sure that a majorty of Americans thought that yesterday's "Negroes" - today's African-Americans - were less than human and served better as pack animals than fellow citizens.  Thankfully we are a nation of rights and, at some point, came to realize that polls and votes are not the arbiter of rights, that there are issues that transcend the "majority rule".  There was a reason that certain rights were enumerated in the Bill of Rights and a reason that it is so difficult to "officially" do away with them via legal processes.

So there we are - cite all the polls you wish, but the second amendment is not an issue of popularity; it cannot be denied simply because the wind blows a different direction today any more than could those other rights people enjoy.  Violence, you say?   Violence is violence, it is a human condition, not a characteritic of inamimate objects.  The car you drive, the knife you use, the firearm your neighbor carries - not of them kill of their own accord.  They kill in the hands of people, violent, careless, negligent, evil people.

So, "gun safety" (Orwell was prescient in so many ways) legislation fails and the whining and pointing to polls, as if they can negate rights, begin.  For example, “On Capitol Hill, less than 55% of the Senate was willing to back a proposal that polls say is supported by roughly 90% of Americans,” co-host Mika Brzezinski said on Thursday’s Morning Joe.   Of course, she also loves it that Bloomberg is telling his peons what they can drink.

Next we enter phase two - individual states have begun asserting their own control over gun owners' rights and, of course, the Northeast leads to way in imposing draconian and seemingly unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of Americans.  Of course, those at a national level applaud this, considering it step one to more national control.

But let's ponder this:  Suppose a southern state were to decide that that whole civil rights thing was bunk, that the back of the bus was fine, as were separate schools and water fountains.  Is that okay with everyone out there?  Why not?  If each state is allowed to interpret "rights" in its own way - or not and simply deny them - then what's the difference?  Even more egregious is the fact that the Civil Rights Act is law - an interpretation of rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution.  Compare that to the second amendment, in which gun ownership is clearly spelled out as a right.  In fact, the second amendment does not grant that right, it assumes it exists in the natural order ("the right of the people") and merely asserts that it "shall will not be infringed".  So our constitution accepts the natural right to bear arms for protection and asserts that it may not be abridged; not muvch in there about women or minorities.

For those who prefer polls and consensus to the Bill of Rights, I say "There is a reason they are rights".  That reason is that they are not subject to majority aproval.  My rights are not up for you to debate, any more than yours are for mine.  Even Rachel Maddow asserted this when discussing gay rights - that we do not poll or vote on rights.  She does, however, seem to have conveniently forgotten that stand for unalienable rights when it comes to rights she personally does not enjoy.