imported post
It seems to me the argument here is still the same one... some feel Open Carry is a privilege and others that it is a born right.
If we look at the 2nd amendment to the bill of RIGHTS, and pull our argument from there, then i believe it is a right born onto an american or earned by someone who becomes a legal citizen.
Just as no person may infringe upon your right to worship as u wish, should that not also hold true for other RIGHTS? As you are free in the United statesas a RIGHT toVote as you see fit, should this not also apply to the RIGHT to bear arms?
As the facts lay, and if our nation is based and upheld by a document with clear and simple statement of the RIGHTS of all citizens which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, are we not in effect doing an injustice by saying that it is ok to OC but only in a manner that One or more of us chose is proper? would that not fall under the bounds of INFRINGEMENT?
You or i may disagree with the manner in which MEM acts while observing his RIGHTS as a US Citizen, just as he may dislike the fact the way in which a Muslim Preaches, or the way that a Democrat votes, but would he not be wrong in trying to argue that because the Democrat voted not in his favor the Democrat was somehow UnAmerican? As we come full circle, and as OC is a RIGHT acording to the Bill of rights, The word that seems to be the problem for all here is simple... INFRINGEMENT.
How can we argue about an issue listed in the bill of rights, without infringing upon those exact rights? Perhaps that is why that word was used oh so many years ago.. simply to end any argument on the subject and allow the interpretation to be held by any man. As the 2nd amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, there are also other laws that make sure that while observing this right, others are protected. If while observing this Right, nobody is harmed , does that not end the reason or theneed for further infringement?
Perhaps we have uncovered another even bigger issue among the people, perhaps it is the ability for people to mind their own business. Certainly we all hope that bad things dont happen to good people, however, people seem to keep using that one reason to justify why they feel that infringing upon anothers right is justified.. "so that they dont do something wrong that hurts someone else" How can a person use the possibility of an action as grounds for Infringement? How can this be justified? Sure, someone will take the 2nd amendment and misuse it and innocent people will be hurt, but isnt that why we have those LAWS that PUNISH? This takes us into another world, the world of you, or anyone, having the right, to judge a man and infringe upon him, before even god himself has had a chance to judge him.
If in fact a man, while observing his given and uninfringeable right, is infrindged upon by you based upon the fact that he or she MAY commit a crime, have we not overstepped not only the bounds of man, but entered into gods own domain? Does not even GOD choose to judge a man only AFTER he has done wrong unto another?
To simplify this rant, the second amendment is a RIGHT to keep and bears arms, and anyone , via argument or action who Infringes upon that right, in any manner, has in fact and shown here, named himself the judge above God almighty himself.
So which of you wants to keep arguing?
