Quote: Originally Posted by BlithelyDoubt .
lol...don't resist.
That's the part everybody already quotes - there is no need to highlight it. I was trying to bring some light to the other part... were it says that the point of the amendment was to allow for well regulated militias to secure the state. I don't think the average gun toting cyclist is out on a militia appointed security run. So, it doesn't seem like a very well regulated use of the weapon. Just sayin.
The supreme court disagrees with you. The recent ruling of Heller vs DC held that owning a gun is an individual right regardless of a person being in a militia.
It has been commonly argued (incorrectly as the Supreme Court has held) that this right was related to militias but the deliberate placement of a comma between "state" and "the right" has always forced it to be read as two separate thoughts.
Here is the decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Here is the relevant section of the majority decision. Note that this is section 1 of the decision.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–5
I can go to the liquor store and buy 5 kegs to take home but it does not mean that I intend to drink it all by myself, nor drink and drive, nor serve it to underage tweens. Could I be stocking up for a 100 person concert? Halloween party? Having 1 beer a day for a long long time?
I am a little confused about your self restraint argument. Is a person who carries a gun somehow displaying a lack of self restraint or moderation?
I have carried a gun/guns every day for I don't know how many years and I don't believe anyone has ever told me that I need to restrain myself from doing so, or that I need to carry my gun more moderately. I would argue that the opposite is true...that history has shown that with the daily carry of my gun/guns I have never acted out of control and used it illegally and thus prove to be very well restrained with regard to the use of my gun/guns.
You could carry a lance (I don't really know what that is) to work if you wanted to. So long as it is legal to do so, who are we to stop you? Plenty of people in this country do plenty of very stupid things. You may think that me carrying a gun is stupid but that's both my preference as well as my right.
lol...don't resist.
That's the part everybody already quotes - there is no need to highlight it. I was trying to bring some light to the other part... were it says that the point of the amendment was to allow for well regulated militias to secure the state. I don't think the average gun toting cyclist is out on a militia appointed security run. So, it doesn't seem like a very well regulated use of the weapon. Just sayin.
The supreme court disagrees with you. The recent ruling of Heller vs DC held that owning a gun is an individual right regardless of a person being in a militia.
It has been commonly argued (incorrectly as the Supreme Court has held) that this right was related to militias but the deliberate placement of a comma between "state" and "the right" has always forced it to be read as two separate thoughts.
Here is the decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Here is the relevant section of the majority decision. Note that this is section 1 of the decision.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–5
The act of being in possession of an object does not show a lack of restraint, nor a lack of moderation. (how do you carry a gun in moderation?)Originally Posted by BlithelyDoubt .
It also says the right shall not be infringed (presumably by legislation) ; I'm not advocating taking away anybody's rights by law. But it's not unreasonable to expect self restraint and moderation in light of the intent of the amendment. I could probably legally carry a lance on my ride to work, but, even if it was practical, it is unnecessary. I have been chased by a dog btw, so i understand the impulse to carry a gun (or lance.) I chose to use less dangerous methods.
I can go to the liquor store and buy 5 kegs to take home but it does not mean that I intend to drink it all by myself, nor drink and drive, nor serve it to underage tweens. Could I be stocking up for a 100 person concert? Halloween party? Having 1 beer a day for a long long time?
I am a little confused about your self restraint argument. Is a person who carries a gun somehow displaying a lack of self restraint or moderation?
I have carried a gun/guns every day for I don't know how many years and I don't believe anyone has ever told me that I need to restrain myself from doing so, or that I need to carry my gun more moderately. I would argue that the opposite is true...that history has shown that with the daily carry of my gun/guns I have never acted out of control and used it illegally and thus prove to be very well restrained with regard to the use of my gun/guns.
You could carry a lance (I don't really know what that is) to work if you wanted to. So long as it is legal to do so, who are we to stop you? Plenty of people in this country do plenty of very stupid things. You may think that me carrying a gun is stupid but that's both my preference as well as my right.