What is an "element of freedom," out of curiosity? Also, I think you may be being a bit reactive, here. As I read it, Revan did not state that we have to prove that a right is legitimate, merely that those rights can be lawfully restricted, where we as a society (or our elected officials/appointed judges, to be pedantic) decide. Unless you're arguing that... I don't know, interpretations of the rights our constitution endows us with have no place in our system of law? I don't think that's the case, but I'm having a hard time seeing where you're coming from on this one. The only other thing I can maybe see here is that you're arguing purely from a stance of ideological purity, which has a place, but it isn't terribly helpful when trying to determine laws. Edit: For clarification, I'm pro-gun, but believe as has been previously stated and restated in this thread that gun owners, and most assuredly the gun's themselves, should be on a type of national registry. That, and a common sense class in safely owning and operating a firearm should be mandatory. For these things to work in any type of efficient manner, of course, the ATF would require a great deal more funding.