One said:
Now is the time for us to push back at the restrictive gun laws proposed by pushing for a national carry law. WE need to ask for something; we're always on the defensive!
The other raised this argument against that:
Such is already in the Bill of Rights, isn't it? If we really DO believe in the second amendment why must we put this already-established, permanent and un-infringible right... to a debate by the legislators who can make a law one year and remove that law the next?
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say you can keep and you can bear arms -- if you go through a background check/criminal investigation. It doesn't say you can bear arms -- if you take training. It doesn't say you can bear arms if your state will let you. It doesn't even say you can bear arms -- only if nobody thinks you don't have a screw loose. It says that such right not be even so much as *infringed* upon; meaning you cannot even begin to touch it.
The courts are where this needs to be settled. We don't need one more whim of LAW taking ownership of our rights that are stated right there in the Amendment we all say we support.
The first guy came back saying that:
I agree with you in principle, but today, people will never accept the 2nd Amendment as it was written, and that the courts will not go that far, so we have to settle for what we can get in the system that's given us.
The second guy came back again with:
National carry solves one issue, but the 2nd Amendment covers it all, including the assault weapons ban or registration scheme. You can make it legal to carry and then you can still license everybody so you have self-registration of gun owners and you can still have an assault weapons ban or registration, so it doesn't solve anything; they'll just come after us in other ways.
The first guy said the second is being unrealistic and we have to compromise or we'll lose everything to a public that doesn't know or understand guns or the need for the 2nd Amendment.
I thought that was an interesting exchange... I think both have good points, and the last point by the first guy may describe a population that simply no longer values the 2nd Amendment enough to not defend it; but are we there or are we just a divided nation on the issue?
