Incredibly too, I DO agree with the 2nd amendment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_t..._and_bear_arms
2nd - The right to keep and bear arms
, often referred as the right to bear arms
or the right to have arms
, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons
for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war. This is why wikipedia is a poor source for debate..."to wage war"? I have no desire to wage war...just to protect me and my family. Maybe this is why we have divergent views of the 2A.
Meant to wage War has the keenest interest to me. Which does not constitute OC all the time, or to simply make a statement that may be misinterpreted as deliberate and provocative 'strutting', 'posturing', etc. I do believe that common sense, and responsible behavior must be clearly outlined in this regard. OC should never be a resort unless there is a clear, evident and obvious danger.
I think you need to get out more...I have yet to see an OCer "strut" or "posture"...I think you are making this up.
My concern is a healthy line that is safe for everyone (how do you define "safety"?--that is the most basic of questions to this discussion)
, not just those who want to carry these. How do you decide who has the mental ability and stability to carry these openly? At what age? The state of VA says 18...the age of majority.
I'm reminded that it's the most vulnerable of any society that need most protection, yet these are the ones who will not be able to defend either because they are too young, too feeble, too ill, emotionally or intellectually so limited that they cannot reasonably be responsible. That's what parents or responsible adults are for. This is a free society--bad things happen...and the State can't prohibit bad people from doing bad things.
If Dad or Mom is carrying openly, what do they do with these weapons when they are home with their children? Do they lock them up and so make everyone vulnerable again? Really none of your (or the State's) business--the PARENTS, NOT THE STATE are charged with the responsibility for these questions. However, the parents are subject to any/all legal consequences of not securing a firearm from theft or misuse.
At what point can their children be considered stable and rationally mature enough to hold anger, curiosity and play at bay? Until the age of majority--they are no longer legally "children"...or until they are out of the house....whichever happens first.
The rest of your response is not relevant to the 2A and distracts from the argument...meanwhile, your responses for "the children" makes me question how you support the 2A...since the "for the children" rationale is one that is used by those who wish to strip away the 2A....except for the military or police.
ETA: Holy crap! I just went back and looked at your "source" in Wiki. This is what your "source" Garry Wills, PhD, had to say about the 2A:
Garry Wills interprets the Second Amendment as a cynical maneuver by James Madison...The final clause of the Amendment, referring to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and commanding that this right "shall not be infringed" for Wills really means that Congress faces no constitutional barriers at all if, for example, it determines that the Militia should consist only of a relatively few number of people, all vetted by federal authority, and that no one else shall have any protected constitutional right "to keep and bear arms."
Did you vet your source? If you didn't and truly believe this drivel...you are a troll looking to stir stuff up. We all like an honest debate...using sources and facts...but don't tell us you "support the 2A"...and not back it up.