Replies

Took me a little time to get back here, sorry.

That’s ok, it happens.

Your idea that bearing arms outside the home might not be “part of the right” to keep and bear arms is, quite frankly, absurd.

That’s not my idea. That idea is from the article, which I quoted as follows: “The primary issue is whether there is *any* right to bear arms outside of the home."

The wording of the Second Amendment does not place nor imply any such restrictions, or indeed any restrictions at all, on that right.

The wording of the Second Amendment does not explain that right at all, except to state that, whatever the right means, it shall not be infringed.

My idea is that we need to concentrate more on the meaning, extent, scope and so forth of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and stop knee jerk responding with “shall not be infringed”.

If they try to pass a law prohibiting five-year olds from publicly carrying NAA revolvers, fully loaded, cocked , with their fingers on the trigger, saying “shall not be infringed” will not serve as an argument against the law in the minds of many people. You’ll have to explain why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” extends to five-year olds.

If they try to pass a law prohibiting someone from publicly wearing a suicide vest with a dead man’s switch in their hand, saying “shall not be infringed” will not serve as an argument against the law in the minds of many people. You’ll have to explain why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” extends to such action.

Such explanations require more concentration on the meaning, extant, scope, and so forth of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. If we don’t do it, our opponents or those in the middle between us and our opponents will, and we won’t like the outcome.