[headcase]

Originally Posted by TaePo

This is where the rubber meets the road for the Second Amendment, so to speak.

In a democracy, majority rules. No matter what. Our Founding Fathers understood that plurality thinking is not neccessarily righteous thinking.

This is why I tend to interpret the Constitution as a 'purist'.

The Bill of Rights, no less the 2nd Amendment, can never be repealed or 'amended' / changed.

Even if everyone in the US decided weapons were no longer required for any reason, we cannot strike down the Second Amendment. If only one person wanted to carry, we must let them. Even if no one carried anymore or kept arms, the 2nd would still stand for future use. The only way it can be restricted is if everyone decided not to exercise it anymore. But the right itself can never go away.

Sort of sounds like the way OC is being treated. Sure, it is your right but we will harrass, embarass and otherwise torture you publicly to make it too uncomfortable and difficult to exercise that basic right.

This is why I support those that OC 24/7.

Secondly, the last phrase in the 2nd, '...shall not be infringed.", has been infringed and the courts have openly determined that there can be reasonable limits. In reality, there are no reasonable limits. All men are created equal and we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Our history is full of such documentation and foresight but unfortunately we do not live up to the ideals in reality.

We allow ourselves to be subjugated because we want to be thought of as reasonable people, too. And a purist reading of the Constitution at first glance seems stubborn or obnoxious and, of course, unreasonable.

I quoted this because it is pure truth.


The OP is full of assumptions and statements that need to be sourced and backed up.