I think presenting it as
people who think you should be able to own guns
kind of makes arms not a right so much as just a commodity.
Might as well change "guns" to "cars" or "cigarettes" or "pot" or "corn dogs" or "slaves."
IMO it's not about "should be able to own" so much as "believe government even contemplating the thought of trying to infringe upon, keep you from, or take away, your bearing of arms is egregious."
IMO that is a huge problem anymore.
People don't inherently see bearing arms as a right, like breathing or life. It's just an object, or tool, just a gun, a tiny little thing, a device for murder. So who cares if they just take away that one little object? You don't have a right to drive..why should you have a right to shoot?
Personally, I think anything that offers resistance to a governments application of power can be considered an "arm." Firearms being just one representation of a larger concept.
we are born with breath and life,, we arent born with guns in our hands
bad analogy
it is a TOOL,,its a tool that is used for MILITARY(ie militia) purposes and defense and hunting,, but it is a tool, for sale, with requirements,,,
personallly, my opinion is that tools used to take life should never be just a 'right',, but a privilege, given only with GREAT responsibility over their usage and maintenance,,,
but the founding fathers have spoken and noone has yet amended their words on that matter,,,
as far as driving, it is an interesting claim that it is a right, (I havent verified or denied it, I have seen pieces claiming both sides )
but that comes down to culture,,,to me,, what were the founding fathers 'driving' exactly
if we were still in horse and buggies, that would make sense as a 'right',, but inthe speed demon wagons we now drive,, and the NUMBER of them sharing roads,,, not so much.
Edited by
msharmony
on Thu 06/25/15 11:59 AM