Maybe a better analogy is a person who distastes all humans speaking, but supports the 1st amendment. It doesn't fit.
What? That doesn't even make sense.
A person who has a distaste for firearms, doesn't want them around or available, absent LEO/Military. Owning a firearm is the exercise of the 2A. Having a distaste for firearms, but then supporting them is contradictory to each other. There are many many people who don't own a firearm, but support the 2A, they choose to not want a firearm.
To support the 2A; one has to approve of the use/carry/organization of a firearm. So how can one approve of the 2A, but have a distaste/repugnance for the very item it takes to practice the 2A? The 2A provides the RKBA; just like the 1A provides the exercise of speech via people. The practice of 1A is speech through humans; the practice of the 2A is through the ownership/use of a firearm. Removing a firearm from the equation, eliminates the 2A.
Your premise is that owning firearms is the only way to support the 2A? Your definition of "support" fails on such a great level.
The underlined is exactly correct....however, those who distaste firearms are not guided by freedoms, they are guided by control. We are not talking about someone who just doesn't like a firearm or has no desire to own one......distaste is a repugnance of them, considers them vile, hatred of them.
You're misrepresenting- rather mis-defining the word "distaste" into something it isn't.
Dictionary.com:
noun1.dislike; disinclination.
2.dislike for food or drink.
verb (used with object), dis·tast·ed, dis·tast·ing.3.Archaic. to dislike.
The statement from stealthyeliminator:
Yes, in the sense that you can have a personal distaste for firearms, or a serious lack of interest, or even despise firearms, but still respect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, along with the right and necessity for a populous to be equipped, trained, and generally prepared to defend themselves (potentially referred to as the forming of a militia).
gives an explanation on how one can support the 2A but be anti-gun.
You've refused to acknowledge the support and position to this statement. You're not "thinking out loud," you're debating semantics based on your false assumption of what is true.
As many have said before, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can't support it.
Choosing to
not exercise a right does not equal not supporting it. I work with a woman who has no desire to own a gun, but respects that people have the right to own guns- including her son.
You have a right to bear and keep arms. You have a right not to bear and keep arms. You have a right to free speech. You have a right to not exercise free speech. I don't see how we can explain it any clearer.
