Firearms aren't the only things covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment states;

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.

Although this is often connected to the possession firearms ( as I believe was the intent ), I would like to point out that it wasn't limited to just firearms. Wikipedia describes the meaning of "bear arms" as the following:

It is undisputed that the term "bear arms" has often been used in a military context, and has also been used with reference to self-defense, for example in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: “The people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.”

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." The OED dates this use to 1795.

Garry Wills, an author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

Garry Wills also cites Greek and Latin etymology:

... "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings.

Don Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, cites historic English usage describing the "right to keep and bear their private arms."

Likewise, attorney Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes a non-military usage of the phrase in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."

Historian Jack Rakove, in an amicus brief signed by a dozen leading historians filed in District of Columbia. v. Heller,[118] identifies several problems with the Kates and Blodgett-Ford argument. Coxe's reference describes the ownership of weapons, not the purpose for which the weapons were owned. Thus, privately owned weapons were state mandated as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense. Other historians have noted that the Second Amendment was as much a civic obligation as it was a right in the modern sense. The meaning of the Pennsylvania dissent of the minority is even more hotly disputed. A number of scholars, including Gary Wills, Jack Rakove, and Saul Cornell have all noted that this text, written by the Anti-Federalist minority of a single state, was hastily written and never emulated by any other ratification convention.

Some historians have claimed that prior to and through the 18th century, the expression "bear arms" appeared primarily in military contexts, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians. According to historian Richard Uviller:

In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.

However, this conclusion is quesioned by published research of Clayton Cramer and Joseph Olson who argue that while previous scholarly examination of the phrase "bear arms" in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts, that this perhaps is reflective of a selection bias problem arising from the use of a limited selection of government documents that overwhelmingly refer to matters of military service. Cramer and Olson note:

Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that...have nothing to do with military service...[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that appeared in the 1790’s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.' This right was separate from militia duties."

LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE opponents of the 2nd Amendment would like us to believe that they are referring only to firearms and GUN CONTROL regulations. In my opinion, what they really want is to remove any means to defend ourselves from those wanting to destroy the intent of the our founding fathers when they originally wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why do you think the oaths our governments officials and military vow the following:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

In other words, the 2nd Amendment protect ALL Americans from those wanting to destroy what many have fought and died for from within our borders as well. For them to be able to do that they first need to know who has weapons ( registration ) and removing those weapons ( the means to defend ourselves ) by any means possible. And the courts are being used as one of those means. Have the courts change the law from the bench has been useful to them so far. A.C.L.U. lawyers challenge everything these days from banning the Bible from public schools, removing God from the public square as well as government owned land or forcing the Boy Scouts to have homosexual scout masters. You see it happening almost daily on television.

The next time someone wants you to vote for a candidate who supports GUN CONTROL legislation, remind them of that little fact. And always keep in mind that it isn't the gun that kills a person. It's often the evil in the heart of the person pulling the trigger. And owning a weapon to protect ones self, family or country isn't a sin.

It's a God given RIGHT.