| >That makes sense. But presumably you don't have to permit the guns you don't carry around. Generally, it's not the gun that's permitted it's you as an individual. You're telling the government "hey I have a gun and here's all of my personal information". Even if you only carry one around it's not a huge leap to assume that more may exist and if confiscation were to happen they know you have at least one (and probably more than one) to seize. Not to mention said information is stored in databases where the information can (and has been) stolen [1] which may lead to you becoming a more valuable target for theft. I can legally (but not wisely) carry a firearm in the open in my state, but if I don't want everyone to know about it and "conceal" it I have to tell the government and be put in a database that may get leaked. >And it's a "well regulated militia", not a free for all There's plenty of debate over that term (and if it's just some antiquated terminology or not), but
it is followed by "the right of the people" (not explicitly just some "militia" for what that's worth). I'm not in favor of it being a true free-for-all and there's plenty of restrictions on who should be able to have guns which are seemingly reasonable (with appropriate due process), but realistically that only affects those who comply with laws. >I understand people wanting more rights than they are statutorily entitled to. I want as many rights as possible for the most amount of people. Of course this one is one of the most contentious given the risk of harm (which should be acknowledged in any honest argument), but in my estimation if you consider it a right (which not everyone does clearly) you should defend it because there's no shortage of governments wishing to remove rights from its people. >So do I, on other rights Without going too far down the slippery slope, which other rights are you willing to compromise on with the least generous interpretation? Or would you rather prefer the strongest interpretation that maintains the most personal protections at the risk of a
safety over freedom? 2A aside, I think there's a bunch of rights including speech and privacy rights the government would like to bypass for the supposed sake of perceived safety. After all we have to stop the terrorists and protect children, the ends justify the means. [1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/12/how-did-confidenti... |
Is it the "people" as a group of singular individuals, or the "people" as a group. I almost wish the founders had set up the same structure that Switzerland had, instead of making it so ambiguous. Because as is it seems any restriction may be unconstitutional. Why should felons or those declared to be non compos mentis be specially excepted?
> Without going too far down the slippery slope, which other rights are you willing to compromise on with the least generous interpretation?
It's been a few years since I've really thought about this and I can't recall them to mind at this time. I'm distracted by other things in life at the moment.
> Or would you rather prefer the strongest interpretation that maintains the most personal protections at the risk of a safety over freedom?
One person's right is another person's limit. I'm generally in favor of the Scandinavian/Californian right for the public to pass through, and even use, certain property regardless of ownership. But as a bleeding-heart vegetarian I'd be enraged if I ever manage to own land, and a hunter passed onto my property to kill animals who I know by name.
I personally will probably never own a gun because historically I know I probably would have, at minimum, brandished it out of anger. I value my own freedom, and the safety of others, too much to own a gun. And from what I've read in news articles it seems a bunch of other people should do the same. But they don't. You can try to train morality, but you can't force others to use it.
The government acting the way it does is an instance of power corrupting. And the powerful not caring about the imposition others must deal with. It, too, is a balancing act.
I want to edit to add:
> but in my estimation if you consider it a right (which not everyone does clearly) you should defend it because there's no shortage of governments wishing to remove rights from its people.
The few times I am aware of that the right to bear arms has been pushed against the US government wanting to remove guns, a lot of people have died, and not on the government's side (thinking Ruby Ridge and Waco).