It was never about protecting yourself from the opium freak down the street.
Since I'm the only one who mentioned anything remotely close to opium and freaks.
"Allow me to retort"
I'm thinkin' you don't have one down the street or maybe your bow would be out of storage.
Times may have changed just a bit from 1789.
I'm guessing you've never been on the working end of a .45 caliber pistol or a knife held at your throat.
You just might rethink your stance.
I'm just sayin'.
I wasn't singling anyone out with the opium freak comment (sorry if you felt that way) - it was an extremely general statement and I was just pointing out that the amendment was about foreign, and domestic, threats to freedom. It wasn't about personal protection. On this matter there is no stance to rethink - it says what it says.
I am also aware of how 'justice' was carried out in those days. With most people being armed, there was a big deterrent to crime (and swift, harsh consequences). There is no doubt that an armed civilian population can deter several crimes - even today. There is also the danger of that same armed civilian population doing more harm than good. Simple disagreements and arguments suddenly become deadly - anger is not always logical, and actions/decisions under such conditions suffer the same.
I was an opponent of a concealed carry proposal in Missouri several years ago. My reason was this - if everyone I meet potentially has a gun, some disagreement ensues, and that person reaches into their jacket - what action am I now allowed to take? I feel my life is in danger based upon that action - can I kill him?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun (concealed), then I must assume that everyone IS in order to protect myself. This opens up a huge problem - overreaction. I kill him because I feel threatened, to find out later that he was reaching for a phone. Or I give the benefit of the doubt, and end up dead because he did reach for a gun in anger. I realize of course that anyone could carry now, breaking the law in most areas - but without an expectation of a gun, I'm less likely to overreact.
Crime deterrent = yes. Threat to innocence = yes. Where does the scale come to rest? I do not know, but prefer the odds of limited criminal action to the many times people become enraged with each other. I once had to subdue a friend of a friend (who had a gun) outside of a bar many years ago. He got into a argument with someone inside, pushing and cussing ensued, and we grabbed him and left the bar. He was so angered that he reached into his glovebox and got his 9mm out - determined to go back inside and shoot or threaten the guy with it. Over a simple argument in a bar. Had he the gun on him in the bar at the time - he would have drawn it. What may have happened then I do not know, but its damn scary over such a trivial event - especially if the other guy(s) had guns too. I simply cannot get such scenarios out of my head when looking at concealed carry - which may be a bit off topic and specific, but it is where my personal line is drawn. So, now that I've made a stance of some sort you are free to question it.
