My cold dead hands and all that
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ignoring precedent and the generally held opinions of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court has reinterpreted the Second Amendment to provide an individual instead of a collective right to bear arms. Not that you'll hear the psycho right freaking out about "activist judges" on this one, but it is a pretty radical departure from precedent.

Link

I own a couple of guns which I threaten to shoot people with on a regular basis, so I have mixed feelings on this one. I mean, it would be so much harder to get through traffic and long lines at the supermarket if I couldn't wave my .357 at people who get in my way.  So I'm glad that my right to do that will be protected.  On the other hand, I'm not sure what this means for sensible gun control, like restricting private ownership of machine guns and surface-to-air missiles.  Because unless you believe people should be able to privately own nuclear weapons, you believe in gun control in some form. The argument really becomes an issue of to what degree weapon ownership should be regulated.  Do you need a howitzer to defend your home and hunt deer?  Or would a nice rifle suffice?