Now if all citizens had a gun to carry,
wouldn't there be situations where a gun may be used by mistake,
or may be used when it is not a matter of protecting life and limb, but protecting one's ego?
If I am wrong, then why does the military have so much regimentation
amongst its gun carrying troops?
Mostly, its to instill discipline so that thay will hold their positions,
and not flee in the face of the enemy, in combat; (that has been how
most military units have been defeated).
I am at a loss to know to what specific regimentation u refer.
I did not feel "regimented" while I was bearing arms in the US Army.
I am not aware of any complaints of "regimentation."
I think guns and regimentation go together like the old horse and carriage.
Are civilians that regimented? "No, Sir!"
People had whatever constitutional rights thay had
LONG BEFORE u were born
and their rights do not depend upon what u think.
Next November, if u *THINK* that people shud not vote,
thay have the right to do so regardless of what u think.
In my own opinion, the Second Amendment was written when the
country's population was fairly homogeneous, and with societal mores
that reflected more emotional control.
In your own opinion,
was the jurisdiction
which was invested in government changed by "emotional control"
of the creators of government? Thay decreed that :
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
with no comments about emotions.
Note, incidentally, that NO police existed in the USA when the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Everyone had to defend himself
from the violence of man or beast, as a matter of survival.
Plus, there was a need to hunt for food.
Perhaps, the Second Amendment may be very good for a country
just starting out in a new land?
Principles of self defense
and the right of immediate access to emergency equipment
to effect that right are always very good for anyone everywhere.
But, since the high court has said it is still valid for today that only means
that is the ruling of the high court.
That means that government has NO JURISDICTION,
) to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms,
the same way that it cannot choose your favorite color for u.
But, that does not mean the ruling was correct.
How do u KNOW
, since u did not read it ?
The USSC is the final decision maker; there is no appeal from it
to any other body.
It was just a ruling for the present
as to the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The Amendment cannot change without a constitutional amendment.
It is what it always was, since 1791.
This reminds me of a car's speedometer.
It shows a top speed of 140 mph. How often is that needed?
But, cars are built to go easily at 120 mph.
Not safe, but somehow it is desired to have that speed available.
I think the Second Amendment ruling is similar in that it is wanted by a big constituency,
regardless if guns are needed by the populace.
The natural right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged and defended
by the BILL OF RIGHTS
, not by the bill of NEEDS
Now while citizens may have the right to own a gun,
does the ruling also say that an employer cannot ask a potential
employee about his/her gun activities?
No, but those employers might be concerned about
federal civil or criminal litigation as per:
" UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I
CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
§§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten,
or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, . . .
in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege secured to him by
or laws of the United States
. . .
They shall be fined not more than $10,000
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment
for any term of years or for life. " [emphasis added by David]
Market forces may ultimately prevail,
as to the number of people that join the gun enthusiast community?
I support FREEDOM OF CHOICE
in self defense,
the same as in choice of religion.