In regards to the OP... apparently the objection was that the gun was visible, not that it was present. How many other people in the library may have been armed is unknown. But the OP didn't seem to mind that idea. His objection was it wasn't necessary to go "armed in the streets" (despite the fact that CCWers do all the time, he just can't see it). A person wearing a gun in a proper holster is probably unlikely to be a criminal or even a nutjob. He's doing nothing illegal, but the OP doesn't like it. Well, too bad. I don't especially like young people dressing "gangsta" and hanging out near my favorite eatery in groups of six or seven either. Too bad for me.
Re: Other posts:
I have somewhat of a problem letting anyone CCW or Open Carry, there needs to be through background checks, mental health evaluations and training.
To
bear arms is part of the right. In so far as I know, rights are inherent and not subject to gov't approval or permission. This would include a psyche evaluation before excercising the right. For CCW, you might get away with it because it appears that concealed carry was frowned upon in early America as dishonest.
Its not their right to wear what ever they want, the government implements a quasi dress code because the gain of its implementation is greater then any loss.
Excuuuse me? What "quasi dress code" does the gov't enforce or implement? The ONLY dress code is one where certain body parts must be covered in a public place. Private businesses and organizations can set dress codes but I know of no such power of a government to dictate dress codes in public.
Again gain verses loss, when the gain is greater then the loss, then its implemented. If its logically sound and statistically correct then maybe its the right thing to do.
You make laws designed for the betterment of society, if the benefit to society is greater then any detriment caused by the law, then the law should be past.
You can't make everyone happy, you can only do whats best.
Your expression of opinion runs counter to our Democratic Republic's concept of rights, powers and law. Who determines if the "loss" is of no importance? Who will decide if the "gain" offsets the loss of a right?
I submit that the following could arguably be classified as a "benefit" to society that is greater than the detriment;
- Loud or offensive speech: Prevents time-consuming and court-clogging cases over free speech rights.
- Prohibition of all firearms: Killing another person would be messier and harder to get away with resulting in higher conviction rates and "lower crime".
- Replace trials by summary hearings: Trials are expensive and time-consuming rituals. Huge cost savings could be gained by eliminating juries and trials.
- Eliminate elections: The entire election/campaign system results in billions of wasted dollars spent that could be used for bettering society. Eliminate expensive elections that drag down productivity, divert attention from important issues like global warming and burdens the taxpayers unnecessarily. Everyone complains that no candidates are worth voting for anyhow.
- Reap huge tax savings by eliminating military barracks and housing soldiers in taxpayer's homes instead. This way those living near military installations can support their troops and contribute to the security of our society.
Fortunately, the founders of our republic decided that the rights of individuals
are important to the health and vitality of society and our nation. They have already made the decision that the right to keep
and bear arms outweighed the right of others in society to
feel safe. They already decided that it was better to create a court system that would let 100 guilty men go free rather than to imprison one innocent man. They required warrants for searches and arrests to prevent the law from being abusive. And so on.
No, S832, I reject your premise that a law beneficial to society
should be passed even if it infringes upon or obliterates an individual right. For that way lies oligarchy and tyranny.
Python, someone with a CCW might have gone in and shot up a school - or got into a fight and started shooting if they allowed CCW on campus, you can't argue what-ifs.
And you obviously don't see the circular logic you employed here. You can't argue what-ifs, yet you specifically used them as your argument.
The constitution is becoming more and more invalid as the times change, so its interpretation gets changed instead of the physical document.
You can't adhere to a 200 year old paper the same way you could back when it was written.
Why not? How is the constitution becoming "invalid"? It's broadly written rights and ability to be amended means it should never become 'stale'.
We would have chaos if the constitution was taken literally, but thankfully its not - free-speech can be restricted, just like the RKBA.
Unprovien first statement. While rights
can be limited, the limitations reflect those which control
overt actions that directly impact the rights of others. Requiring an pysche evaluation or passing a test before exercising one's right would essentially neuter those rights.
A citizen wearing a holstered firearm does not directly impact the rights of any other citizen. If another citizen is nervous around firearms, that's his problem to deal with. Not until the armed citizen actually threatens to unlawfully harm another does he then violate someone's rights.
Yes, we do need a government and we do need laws. But laws that do not respect the liberty of the individual or which cannot be (or are not) enforced simply degrade and cheapen all other laws. Eventually, it corrupts respect for the law, courts and government.
