Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Another Gunman Putting the 'AR15' On The Negative Skyline
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="poopgiggle" data-source="post: 2016036" data-attributes="member: 6406"><p>Here's how I'm looking at it: the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted to protect the right to self-defense, both from dudes trying to jack your wallet and a tyrannical government, with reasonable restrictions for the greater public interest. Keep in mind that I'm talking about HOW ACTUAL COURTS INTERPRET THE LAW NOW, not what the 2nd Amendment means to you.* </p><p></p><p>Nationwide, shall-issue CCW is a huge advance for self-defense against dudes trying to jack your wallet, which is a (relatively) common threat. Nationwide "Constitutional carry" is even better.</p><p></p><p>However, the mag ban would be a loss for resistance against a tyrannical government, but revolutions are REALLY REALLY uncommon. The stakes are higher, but the likelihood of the situation happening are pretty small.</p><p></p><p>So does that constitute a net gain or net loss for 2nd Amendment rights? I don't really know. It depends on how you weight the respective benefits of being able to defend yourself against muggers, and The People being able to defend themselves against government.</p><p></p><p>In reality, I think that with the way the SAF has been agitating for CCW rights over the past few years, shall-issue CCW might happen anyways so it's a moot point.</p><p></p><p>*I know I'm still going to get a lot of "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS UNCLEAR" from people with bad reading comprehension.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="poopgiggle, post: 2016036, member: 6406"] Here's how I'm looking at it: the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted to protect the right to self-defense, both from dudes trying to jack your wallet and a tyrannical government, with reasonable restrictions for the greater public interest. Keep in mind that I'm talking about HOW ACTUAL COURTS INTERPRET THE LAW NOW, not what the 2nd Amendment means to you.* Nationwide, shall-issue CCW is a huge advance for self-defense against dudes trying to jack your wallet, which is a (relatively) common threat. Nationwide "Constitutional carry" is even better. However, the mag ban would be a loss for resistance against a tyrannical government, but revolutions are REALLY REALLY uncommon. The stakes are higher, but the likelihood of the situation happening are pretty small. So does that constitute a net gain or net loss for 2nd Amendment rights? I don't really know. It depends on how you weight the respective benefits of being able to defend yourself against muggers, and The People being able to defend themselves against government. In reality, I think that with the way the SAF has been agitating for CCW rights over the past few years, shall-issue CCW might happen anyways so it's a moot point. *I know I'm still going to get a lot of "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS UNCLEAR" from people with bad reading comprehension. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Another Gunman Putting the 'AR15' On The Negative Skyline
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
