And this old fart made you look up "septuagenarian." Gotcha! ;)
Printable View
The bill of rights is a restriction on the powers of government, not a grant of privilages to the people. That's why it's the bill of rights and not the bill of privilages.
And the right to be armed is a natural right, we as people have the right to be armed to defend ourselves and others from harm that would be inflicted upon us - whether it be with a rock, a stick, a knife, or a gun. Now you don't have the right to use it in a non-defensive manner since that causes harm - but just keeping and bearing doesn't harm anyone else.
Read the language of the BOR - Congress shall pass no law, the right of the people shall not be infringed, cruel punishments shall not be administered - it's all restrictions on the government.
Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=203306
Let's hope, with the current direction of the court, that we are getting BACK TO the original founding principles!
...
In my honest opinion, if you can pass an instant federal background check and you’re licensed to carry, no where should be off limits.
This includes airplanes, schools, and federal buildings. If you had a few licensed gun owners on those planes on 9/11, 3000 innocent Americans wouldn’t have died a torturous death.
Take it from Pinocchio, if your free you need no strings.
At a minimum, at any location where your right to carry is infringed, those who decided to disarm you should provide adequate armed security.
Why do all the spree shooters target schools, and not courthouses, when ordinary citizens are legally disarmed in both places? Because courthouses are full of armed deputies and cops, and schools have all the safeguards of cattle in a slaughterhouse.
I agree that schools should allow armed adults who have passed the LTCF checks. Not so sure about courthouses, a lot of people get very upset in those places and are more likely to shoot up the judge or the DA or their ex-wife or their own lawyer. Almost everyone in court is 100% certain that justice requires them to win, and if they lose (as half of them do), it's an intolerable evil that must be avenged with blood and honor.
Give me a head start by making them go to their car to get a gun before they can hunt me down. OK, maybe not me, most of my clients are happy (or Sneezy, or Doc). But I have a good friend who does family law, and I don't want her facing an armed dude who just had his kids given to his evil bitch of an ex-wife.
I'm not sure its been pointed out but SCOTUS is also "holding" several cases right now, no doubt in my mind that they will be sent back to the lower courts when NYSRPA is decided. We have a NJ & MA good cause/justifiable need CCW cases, CA handgun roster, and Federal interstate handgun purchase ban cases.
The NYC law is pretty much DOA, but the opinion is likely to wipe out all the bad case law against us post-McDonald.
Start with the federalist papers. Self defense is a human right. It's the self affirming right of life to live. Arms are the tool. Arms include guns but are not limited to them. Any implement used in defense is a arming. Guns became the focus of arms after their invention because of their superiority of function in self defense.
Health care as used in today's language is really insurance.
You do have a right to health care today. No hospital can refuse to treat you if you present as unstable. Im not talking about fixing you, I'm talking about dieing in front of them. They are required to stabilize you. The right to life.