You claim there is a right to defend yourself. Where are these rights written down? Can I see the list please and how they are supported by US law?
Wow, but for one vote, that would have gone exactly the other way on that same question. Look at this guy: "Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." Four of those judges actually believe that the constitution affirms no right of any private individual to self-defense, but that the second amendment affords that right to states. Read the dissent, it's completely insane, a ludicrous game of intellectual twister to get around what the text in fact plainly says. I'm telling you guys, this won't last much longer. These fears will be realized. It's only a matter of time.
I do find "carry within the home" another somewhat comedic concept, while a (Holstered) functional and accessible handgun while at home is a plus, outside the home is important too. Somehow, I sincerely doubt the Founding Fathers espoused the Right to keep and bear Arms, ONLY within the home, and I cannot recall any major battles fought in someones home, or calling out the Militia, to clean a child's messy bedroom.... Gotta love Ridiculous Anti Gun opinions, let's throw them a bone and let them carry a gun within the home..... What a joke, and nobody is laughing.
You seem confused about the purpose of argumentation. It's for giving reasons to believe propositions that are not readily verifiable by just looking at the external world. To find out what a constitution says, you don't ask for an argument, you just read that constitution.
First, the States have no Rights, only powers and Authority. Second, if private citizens are allowed licensed Armed security to protect celebrities and their money and valuables and Artwork or priceless artifacts, it sets a precedent legally that a common or non celebrity life, is also worth preserving. Politicians are often provided with Armed security to ensure their safety, sometimes Police protection is provided, and since Rights are equal to all under law, you cannot discriminate as to value in deciding merits of personal defence or place geographical limits or other limits based on caprice, whimsy or discrimination.
Why? It does nothing to negate the veracity of mine. I presented a statement of fact; said statement disproves your position.
I see you do not understand the difference between a ruling/holding and an opinion. Work on that and let me know. One is a statement of fact; the statement of fact I presented disproves your position.
That sounds about like the way it should be, but things don't appear to actually be that way. I mean, those four judges seem perfectly content to have only government agents allowed to have guns. When they get their way, I suspect that those celebrities' security details will consist of government agents.
There is a link in the text of the post you quoted. It's to the dissent's arguments on the same case you cited earlier. Try not to die laughing.
In actual practice, people such as Ted Kennedy had Armed private security, and one of his bodyguards was arrested in Washington DC for various firearms violations... Most people involved in security details are after all, ordinary citizens protecting ordinary citizens. There is sufficient precedent there to ensure the Right to keep and bear Arms for all citizens.
Possibly, but that knife cuts both ways: I think there is enough precedent to allow for any possible outcome, and, given Public Choice economics, I'm not optimistic about the future.
A ruling is an opinion. A legal opinion. It does not mandate it is correct. See Plessy v Ferg. Learn.
