Lelo,
I agree with you on everything that you wrote. I believe that we all have that right based on the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution. However, do your rights supercede someone else's? Or do their rights supercede yours? As I wrote earlier, if you travel or work in a bad area, carry your weapon. The reason I would conceal my weapon in those areas, is simple. I don't want the bad guys trying to get my weapon. Most times they did not even see it, or if they did, they thought I was a cop.
I used to work as a criminal investigator for the State Public Defenders Office back in the early 70's. I carried a Colt Trooper MKIII .357 in a Bill Jordan quick draw holster under a sport jacket. It definitely showed a large bulge. I only had one incident where a bad guy tried to do me harm, until he saw the wrong end of the revolver in his nose. Nobody else ever messed with me.
Well, yeah, but the other reason is, is that the "bad guys" might just come out at you 10 at a time with Uzi's, gun down your a** just to take your gun, just cuz they saw it. Again, reality, common sense, logic, awareness. "If the Tiger's sleeping, don't kick it in the head".
What Right of someone else am I superceding by my exercising my 2nd Amend Right to "keep and bear arms"? Simply because they are self deluded into thinking that it is wrong, bad, dangerous, or criminal to have a gun, that they have "self inflicted" themselves with fear, that they have permitted themselves to be brainwashed by anti gun whackos? I have a 1st Amend Right to Freedom of Speech. If I say "I don't like you", is that superceding someone else's Right to be liked? or not have to hear someone say "i don't like you"? There is no "superceding" of Rights. It's what it is. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Press. Hell, I'm offended all day, every day by what is in the Press, published in books. Communist manifestos for sale in Harvard Square, and at Publishing place on Green St, in Jamaica Plains (Boston). Do I have the Right NOT to have to see and read that crap? I don't like Religion, believe in it, have any use for it. So is my Right superceded by "their" Right to Freedom of Religion? Or is it simply the American way, culture, society, laws, Constitution that everyone has to be tolerant of others' differences? Just so long as they don't force anyone into their way, or harm anyone. I could claim I am a Druid (which I often do just to shut people up and shock Mormons and Born Agains), and claim that my religious practice is to sacrifice virgins on a rock!!! Does that mean I have the right to go out and grab virgins and sacrifice them on a rock? Of course not. Nor do Christian Scientist have the right to forceably tell or prevent other people from going to see a Doctor. To each his own, just don't force it on me. What was the quote of a US Supreme Court Chief Justice? I forget who, who said something to the effect of "The constitution does not protect speech with is popular, but protects speech which is not". The same for the 2nd Amend. Anyone can make up in their own mind that they are afraid of something, offended by something, shocked by something, and then claim that they have a specific Right which outweighs all others. You could claim you are afraid of cars, so outlaw all cars, you are offended by Alcoholic drink, so pass an Amendment Prohibiting Alcohol (oh yeah, that worked out really well, didn't it), that you're afraid of all dogs, so outlaw all dogs. Where does it end? Where is the line?
If you don't need a License to Speak, or to Press (newspaper, TV, publishing), to Religion, to Vote, then why do you need a License to own and carry a gun, when, just as with Speech, Religion, Press, Voting, the 2nd Amend, specifically states "........the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".. So if we can infringe upon our 2nd Amend right, then why can't be infringe upon our 1st Amend Right, and require a License to Speak? What is the difference?
Oh, further, what isn't covered under the 2nd Amend is covered under the 9th Amend.
Oh, by the way, as to the first half of the 2nd Amend "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, .....",.. I am a member of the Militia. Any time the Governor wishes to "call up" the Militia, I will be there. However, in our time, in reality, the last known time in U.S. History, that I know of, that a Governor "call out" the Militia was the Governor of Maryland during WW II. When "good citizens" came out and served in a coast watching duty, for German subs, ships, and planes. Granted they didn't actually do anything, but that was the last time I know of, that the "militia" under the 2nd Amend was ever "called up". Because the Federal Gov't, in actual violation of the Constitution and many State Constitutions, ended up maintaining a "standing Army". Which is the exact thing we fought the British over in the Revolution. Then the need and use of the "militia" simply fell out of need. The U.S Army, or Army Reserves, or U.S. Army National Guard are NOT the "militia". I'm not sure when the last time the "militia" "fell out" here in Mass, probably during the Civil War, or before. Even during WW I there were "National Guard Units" which were "called up" by the President of the U.S. to serve in the US Army. They were not "militia".
