An appellate court in Washington D.C. is deciding whether an anti-gun law is constitutional. According to the Associated Press, one of the judges in the case asked if the "privilege" of having guns was necessary since there are no longer militias. First of all, if you take one look at amendment II of the US constitution, you can see that owning guns is not a privilege. It is a right. It says "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. Obviously, this amendment was meant to support militias, but notice what it says after the coma. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I don't see how anybody who knows the constitution can not think that the second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. I predict that if the Washington D.C. law is upheld, other states will be encouraged to make their own anti-gun laws. What will you gun owners do if you were no longer allowed to own guns. Do you think criminals obey anti-gun laws? no. Anti-gun laws don't keep guns out of criminals hands. They just keep everybody else from being able to protect themselves.