It seems to me humans are just animals with laws. It should be a human right to protect myself and my family with any means necessary regardless of state law. I can't carry a concealed weapon in liberal pussy Rhode Island without being a business owner.
2007-07-24 07:48:57 · 10 answers · asked by George B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Learn kung fu
2007-07-24 07:52:55 · answer #1 · answered by Randolph 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As we know, Federal and State governments have decided
on our behalf how the 2ND. Amendment should be reinterpreted. Regardless we have the right to keep and bear arms as our forefathers wrote this amendment which has nothing to say about how modern interpretation should be used. So if politics's decides to write laws that contradict the
rights of our Constitution then it is them that are breaking
our first laws.
So, no matter what they say, they can't really explain why
it is such a benefit to our way of life. Laws are for would be
criminals.
2007-07-24 08:43:18 · answer #2 · answered by david l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at it on a much smaller scale. How can a person, group or government control people if they can protect themselves? They can't.
Take away their right to bear arms along with their right to free speech, their freedom to practice their own religion along with other rights and then put these same people into poverty so they have to depend on support whether it is through the government or the company that gives them their paycheck regardless of how meager the wage, what do you have? You have your rights suddenly become privileges and the powers that be have the authority over you. How long before we no longer live in a free society?
Food for thought.
2007-07-24 08:00:49 · answer #3 · answered by skycat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Then lobby to get the laws in your state changed. We are just animals with laws. So, it's all a matter of what laws exist.
But if you want to do something "any means necessary regardless of state law" then we no longer have laws, and we go back to being just animals.
Not to mention that if you're carrying a gun in violation of state laws, you are not "law abiding" by definition.
2007-07-24 08:01:34 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It must be terrible living in a state where only criminals and people who don't need guns have guns.
Take the issue up with your state general assembly, congress, or whatever you have in Rhode Island. The second amendment states "shall not be infringed" very clearly.
Perhaps we'll see this in the Supreme Court soon?
2007-07-24 07:58:42 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In theory, every law-abiding citizen /can/, it's just some states make it much more difficult than others.
I suppose you could open up a 'business,' it's just a matter of some paperwork. You could set yourself up a consultancy firm in whatever industry you work in, for instance.
2007-07-24 07:53:26 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because, if you need a gun to protect yourself from imminent danger at all points in time, then you need to rethink your lifestyle. Not everyone is mature enough to own a gun responsibly, and the only thing that would increase is accidental shooting deaths. You can get a gun if you want it, but you have to follow laws, why would you want more than that?
2007-07-24 07:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
2007-07-24 07:52:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They can in some states, move to one of them
2007-07-24 07:52:23 · answer #9 · answered by Scott B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess you should move to Utah then. You will need to pay $50.00 for the permit though.
2007-07-24 10:51:05 · answer #10 · answered by noonecanne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋