A Washington Post editorial seems to finally accept that the Second Amendment means something and will be applied both in and outside Washington D.C.

What I find eyebrow raising is this line:

Any Supreme Court ruling should explicitly recognize the authority of state and local governments to craft regulations to best protect their communities. Gun laws that make sense in a densely populated urban area may be unreasonable or unnecessary to protect the public safety of rural residents.

Would the Post agree that state or local restrictions on the publishing of newspapers may make sense in urban areas while not making sense in rural areas? How about state restrictions on which religion you can practice? Maybe the right to be free from unreasonable searches doesn't apply in D.C.? (D.C. actually tried that one.)

One of these days, even staunch First Amendment advocates will realize that their fear of firearms leads them to support the undermining of all civil liberties. It's not unlike the right's fear of sexual autonomy makes them attempt to undermine the Fourteenth Amendment - something we all need revitalized to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I found consumers with respect to my best friend. They may the second wow gold...she delights in them both. She makes any of them pretty much almost daily to university. method plus enjoyable!