Because it's not about the second amendment at THIS point. That's an early strawman. The second amendment doesn't guarantee HOW you can carry - see below.
We have tried the compromise route many times and so far as I can tell it's only gotten more restrictions placed on our right without any kind of gain for us.
Maybe I'm in the minority on this but I always thought BARE arms meant bare out in the open not right to HIDE arms which is what criminals used to (and still) do. Also exactly where do you think the middle ground is with these people that are scared of arms. We have tried the compromise route many times and so far as I can tell it's only gotten more restrictions placed on our right without any kind of gain for us.
The issue with some of the demonstrations is simple; it is the zealots. These folks who descend on Starbucks, a private business, to make THEIR point. The people who show up with handguns that they claim do not meet the definition of firearm and then video the contact with police and repeat over and over, "Am I being detained, am I free to go", or refuse to leave with their long guns when asked to do so.
The issue with some of the demonstrations is simple; it is the zealots. These folks who descend on Starbucks, a private business, to make THEIR point. The people who show up with handguns that they claim do not meet the definition of firearm and then video the contact with police and repeat over and over, "Am I being detained, am I free to go", or refuse to leave with their long guns when asked to do so.
Their actions are making ME rethink MY position. It is causing me to think about the image I want others to have of me and my beliefs.
Maybe I'm in the minority on this but I always thought BARE arms meant bare out in the open not right to HIDE arms which is what criminals used to (and still) do. Also exactly where do you think the middle ground is with these people that are scared of arms. We have tried the compromise route many times and so far as I can tell it's only gotten more restrictions placed on our right without any kind of gain for us.
The issue with some of the demonstrations is simple; it is the zealots. These folks who descend on Starbucks, a private business, to make THEIR point. The people who show up with handguns that they claim do not meet the definition of firearm and then video the contact with police and repeat over and over, "Am I being detained, am I free to go", or refuse to leave with their long guns when asked to do so.
Their actions are making ME rethink MY position. It is causing me to think about the image I want others to have of me and my beliefs.
Bare means without covering. If the amendment read "the right to keep and bare arms" it would be nonsensical. That word is an adjective that describes a noun. BEAR is the word used in the amendment as a verb (intransitive verb). It means "to carry or posses" in this usage.
Internet rule #1 ... correct someone's spelling, and you automatically make one yourself in the same post. "possess".
.. giving that business a chance to wake up and realize "hey, I could post 30.06 notices and stop EVERYONE from carrying."
EVERYONE? Only folks they really stop are the good guys.
That's funny, but technically it's not a spelling mistake. He wrote BARE... so he just used the wrong word, spelled correctly.
That's funny, but technically it's not a spelling mistake. He wrote BARE... so he just used the wrong word, spelled correctly.
Touché. And that's what everyone posting 30.06 needs to understand...
Look again, you got the wrong post and word. "possess", not "posses". ;0>
I don't think you got what he was saying. Do you possess a dictionary by any chance?
To get back on track... there's a current of thought now that knives are likely protected by the second amendment, too, and that we could see a supreme court challenge along these lines.
I was just pointing out that you stated the BOR grants us rights - it doesn't, it only protects the ones we already have.Context? Read/re-read the post(s) responded to that brought the 2A into the thread.