[William Tell]

From the linked article: "One of the more valuable precepts of our civil society is that one’s having a constitutional right to do something does not necessarily mean that one should do it. In much of the country, Second Amendment advocates are quite right when they insist that openly carrying guns is legal. But that’s not the point. Of course people are going to be upset if you walk brazenly into a coffee shop with an AR-15, and no amount of “It’s my right” will change the fact. Suffice it to say that you probably won’t do a great job of attracting people to your cause if your idea of proselytizing is to stick a gun and a copy of the Constitution in their faces."

Someone help me with this concept.

What would have possessed our Founders to have enumerated a right that "should not" be exercised?

This seems to mimic the atheist stance that religious people "should not" exercise their religion. Similarly, one "should not" exercise their right to be secure in their persons and homes because honest people have nothing to hide.

Is there something special about coffee shops which make the Constitution irrelevant?

[B4Ranch]

>>Is there something special about coffee shops which make the Constitution irrelevant? <<

Yes, they serve Kool Aid to anyone who asks for it.

[Dead Corpse]

One quibble, it’s not our Right that is enumerated, it just has an enumerated protection for that Right in the “Supreme Law of the Land”.

[andyk]

Agreed - the author lost me at that point.