Or .. is your beef only when they restrict -firearms-? If that’s the case, then it’s NOT about “personal protection” or any of that ..

One thing that I feel the need to mention, in the interest of playing the devil’s advocate .. you mention someones opinion not trumping your right .. but does your right to carry a weapon (gun, crossbow, etc) trump the right of someone else to be safe (since weapons are inherently unsafe) walking down the street, etc?

Yes it does, and that isn’t just my opinion, but the opinion of several court’s. I am hunting for the links, but basically, your fear (or someone else’s) over something I’m doing that in no way harms or impedes them isn’t my problem. It’s like saying, I have a fear about what you might say in the state house and as a result you shouldn’t be allowed to be on the ballot.

… also, when do weapons walk down the street unattended? I mean, holstered and on safety in a secure holster is not a problem.

I’m not disagreeing, but I do suggest possibly refining your rationale .. it’s a very slippery slope to say that someone’s opinion of what deserves to be a classified document in the interest of national defense doesn’t trump your right to free press, or that someone’s opinion on how many people can safely fit inside a building doesn’t trump your right to assembly.

Sometimes yes… sometimes no. Every situation is different and I will agree with you on that, but in this instance since the overall conversation feel to the carrying of firearms, I didn’t think the clarification was needed. I did say, “Does that mean I can carry a fully automatic AK-47 down the street on my shoulder? (even though it would be pretty bad ass…) No of course not…”

I find it quite disturbing that you are unwilling to be “disarmed” inside a school or a mental hospital, or other institutional settings. Machismo not withstanding, you’re woefully confident in yourself that you couldn’t possibly be overpowered by a mob of angsty teenagers or mental patients (or whomever) intent on taking your weapon and abusing it. If you’re willing to be “disarmed” of a chainsaw in some given situation, you should be willing to be “disarmed” of whateverelse in that same situation.

I obviously didn’t elaborate on “every” possible instance I would consent to being disarmed, but I assure you the list is rather short.

In terms of your second comment, which I think basically says, “Everyone’s view of reasonable is different”, and this I understand and agree with, but again who defines the lines? Right now we have stupid legislation put in place that doesn’t even solve the problems they says its going to solve. San Francisco did not have a violent crime rate drop. Neither did D.C. Keeping this discussion to the current issue, I will not concede that there is any justifiable reason to completely disarm a populace.

“Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.”

So you don’t think Mr Gates should have a military tank eh? Well Mr Gates doesnt think you should have a musket. What is a “reasonable restriction” to you might not be to someone else, and vice-verca.

In the end, people with stubbornly single-minded unchangable views about a subject are -always- going to be in a position where they are either forcing their views on “reasonable” onto other people, or -feel like- others are forcing their “reasonable” onto them.

The rationale you use here is self-defeating, since most people won’t agree (even if its just on minor details) about what is a “reasonable” restriction on the right to bear arms. So no matter what, somebody feels like their rights are being violated.

What makes you right and them wrong? Who’s to say what restriction on magazine-capacity is “reasonable”. 10 rounds? 100 rounds? No restriction? 500 Rounds? Who’s right, when it’s all subjective opinion?

The point is, if you are not willing to defer to the experts and accept their opinion on what is “reasonable” then you’ll never, -ever-, be satisfied with anything.

Unfortunately, the law of averages is rarely broken, and some of those people get elected to public office, get jobs as police officers, or otherwise assume positions where their opinions actually “matter”.

One thing that I feel the need to mention, in the interest of playing the devil’s advocate .. you mention someones opinion not trumping your right .. but does your right to carry a weapon (gun, crossbow, etc) trump the right of someone else to be safe (since weapons are inherently unsafe) walking down the street, etc?

I’m not disagreeing, but I do suggest possibly refining your rationale .. it’s a very slippery slope to say that someone’s opinion of what deserves to be a classified document in the interest of national defense doesn’t trump your right to free press, or that someone’s opinion on how many people can safely fit inside a building doesn’t trump your right to assembly.

The one thing I do disagree with, I find it quite disturbing that you are unwilling to be “disarmed” inside a school or a mental hospital, or other institutional settings. Machismo not withstanding, you’re woefully confident in yourself that you couldn’t possibly be overpowered by a mob of angsty teenagers or mental patients (or whomever) intent on taking your weapon and abusing it. If you’re willing to be “disarmed” of a chainsaw in some given situation, you should be willing to be “disarmed” of whateverelse in that same situation. If you arent willing to be “disarmed” of a chainsaw while visiting an elementary school, you’ve got some paranoia issues to address