I am very concerned about what essential constitutes last week’s Supreme Court con job on the Second Amendment. Bottom line, the ruling is the Supreme Court’s go-ahead for gun control on a major scale.Anyone who’s tracked the articles and watched the newscasts can see the flop in calling this a "victory" for the individual right to bear arms. What really is happening is that gun owners are being made the victim of an underhanded attack on the second amendment. There is a telling article in the March 19, 2008 USA today written by lawyers from Gun Owners of America pointing out how the second amendment is the very bedrock of America and shouldn’t even be the subject of a Supreme Court debate. The Founding Fathers said that this right should not be infringed. Legal dictionaries clearly point out that this means that it is not to be touched. Most of the nine Supreme Court justices say that the right to bear arms is a "general right." That’s not the case; it is an absolute right, up there with the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, which, unfortunately has also been pretty much obliterated by the Military Commission Act passed two years ago. Just sit down and track this on the Internet.Language that the Justices used allows introducing new regulations on owning hand guns for sure. The NY Law Journal writes: Justice Kennedy’s comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable.Counting Justice Kennedy, it appeared that five or more justices were ready to recognize some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms that is only loosely tethered, if at all, to the functioning of militias. What kind of regulation of that individual right will be allowed by those justices is uncertain . . . The USA Today op-ed piece written by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, attorneys for Gun Owners of America, point out that the Second Amendment was designed to apply to private individuals; this is the primary reason was for the purposes of defense against a tyrannical state or invading army. The second amendment, they write, was not designed to be secure the right of the people to keep and bear Arms — not simply “to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of ‘a free State.’" The Constitution grants ultimate sovereignty to the people, with the Second Amendment demolishing a monopoly by the government on weapons, which is a guarantee to the people to have the firearms needed to defend against government infringement on their unalienable rights as had been done by the British. So the Second Amendment "keep and bear Arms" guarantees the right, the lawyers say, even fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (Their statement was an application of a court of appeals’ test from 2007), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).Amazingly, the Bush Administration says that federal gun control measures should not be limited and President Bush has even said he would re-sign President Clinton’s previous ban on guns. That bothers me. http://Gunowners.org is the perfect place to go to get an accurate take on the whole situation. The organization even looks at the NRA as being a “Judas goat” in accepting the ruling by the Supreme Court as a “victory.”Fourteenth District Texas Congressman Ron Paul, called for the Clement/Bush administration brief to be withdrawn as it sets a precedent for further erosion of individuals’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. He wrote: "If the Supreme Court finds that the D.C. gun ban is a "reasonable" limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Court could create a dangerous precedent for the nation in the future. Such a decision could open the door to further regulation on American citizens’ Second Amendment rights on a large scale." Bottom line any reasonable use of language interprets this as the government saying, "You have the right to bear arms, unless we say so."The Founding Fathers understood that individual ownership of weapons spoke for liberty. Where does not exist, there is tyranny because powerful organizations and governments will have a monopoly on it. The Supreme Court decision is NOT a "victory" for the second amendment, rather, the decision undoes a most fundamental right.