Is Second Amendment "Optional?"

That's how it seems. In 2008, in the "Heller Decision," the Court finally RECOGNIZED that the Second Amendment was NOT "optional." That it DID allow citizens to be armed for self defense. Since then, the Court has avoided questions regarding the right to own and use the MEANS to self defense, a gun. Without which we remain defenseless against the millions of ILLEGALLY-owned guns in the hand of people who would do us ill. I'm convinced that the anti-gun fools WANT us to be defenseless against the "bad guys," whoever they are. They are not against gun ownership, per se, they're against SELF DEFENSE, but are unwilling to say it. That becomes evident when they ban such things as "box knives" after the World Trade Center disaster, and have tried in several cases, to ban STUN GUNS, which are purely defensive. It becomes clear when they attempt to make the Second Amendment "optional" by violating it in every way they can, outside of just ignoring it altogether. Evidence is their attempts to limit it to cover only guns "in use during the writing of the Constitution," and other such subterfuge. Things like forcing people to REGISTER and pass background checks in order to buy BULLETS, attempts to "regulate" gun PARTS, and forcing manufacturers to imprint serial numbers on ALL parts, which is next to impossible. (Reason Magazine)