@ChatanoogaPhil
What is it that drives the obsession to tell others "no" when there is overwhelming evidence that people handle their carry freedoms well. Yet, when naysayers are asked for evidence to support their burdens and mandates upon others they cry fowl? Why?
It is incumbent upon those who wish to place burdens, mandates and restrictions on others to justify doing so.
Well, the opposing point could ask the same questions in a similar manner. Others could ask you why you feel you have the right to carry weapons of a certain design and in such a manner that it alarms non-gun folk in your community, folk that have just as much right to feel safe and secure as you do to own firearms. That same person might also say the definition of 'to bear arms' isn’t clearly specified in the Constitution other than what you believe it means and how the courts have interpreted its meaning, and your interpretation is no more or no less valid than a court opinion. It is simply that, an opinion.
When you default back to 'I can and should be allowed to own/carry any type of firearms made by man because the Constitution says so' it can reasonably be argued based upon years of judicial interpretation that you might misunderstand the Constitution and are reading it hyper-liberally for your own purposes.
Yes, you can and should be able to purchase and carry guns, that is legal. But the 2nd Amendment does not clearly say either by exclusion or inclusion spell out exactly HOW one may do so. Therefore when one reads the 2ndA to their advantage and declares"Since there is no language barring me from owning or carrying fully automatic military weapons into any area of society I wish, then I should be able to", one paints oneself into a corner because by that standard of logic, since the 2ndA does not implicitly say that you CAN do the above, then it must follow that you can’t. It’s back to opinion and interpretation, a situation I know you clearly disagree with.
To answer your above questions I have to provide an opinion to an opinion. An opposing view might ask:
"What is it that drives your obsession to tell others 'no you can't feel safe in Starbucks, McDonalds or Six Flags when I want to carry an AR-15 next your children' when there is overwhelming evidence that people have gotten massacred with AR-15's? Yet when you are asked for evidence to support the burden and mandate of ripping away other's right to feel secure in public, you cry foul and default back to your interpretation of the Constitution as only reasonable interpretation and sole justification when that is simply your opinion, not a provable scientific fact. Why?”
That opposing point of view might also say to you that “It is incumbent upon those who wish to place the burden and mandate of enduring the carry firearms in places where the vast majority of fellow Americans don't want those firearms carried, to be able to justify doing so, and to do so with more evidence than the simple opinion of "Because I believe my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment says I can."
Again, I'm not taking sides. I'm simply pointing out that the "Because the 2ndA says so" argument is circular. You say you’re right and others are wrong and the foundation of that argument is based upon your opinion of what the 2nd Amendment says along with anecdotal evidence and stats that favor your side. Those that tell you you’re wrong and they are right are also basing that argument on what their opinion of the 2nd Amendment says coupled with anecdotal evidence and stats favoring their side.
You cannot solve this here. No one on either side can convince anyone here. I get that you’re passionate and you believe you’re right, but no more so than others with differing opinions do. I respect your opinion and your right to have your opinion. But I don't think because other folks on this forum have a differing point of view they're hysterical or elitist. I've read thoughtful points on both sides, and knee jerk attacks on both sides. Nothing's changed anyone's mind.
Charlie Rangel? Hillary Clinton? Michael Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Barack Obama? Yeah, those are bungling, self-obsessed, hypocritical elitists that are the worst form of lying tyrants our nation has produced in generations. But a simple post asking a differing question on this forum hardly meets that standard. I have yet to read anyone here say that guns should be banned, confiscated, registered or limited only to elected officials, celebrities or the wealthy. We’re all firearms enthusiast here and I think there’s a heck of a lot more common ground than not.
Having said that, I wouldn't open a discussion about abortion or religion on this forum either and frankly I think the topic of whether any qualifiers should be in place for firearms purchase / ownership / carry fits into the same type of polarizing catagories mentioned above.
It’s just unresolvable here.
