In general, I agree with the statements above, but I think the last sentence contradicts them. Yes, our rights are limited by the impact they have on the rights of others (unless the "others" are conservative, heterosexual Christians, but that's a different thread). However, we shouldn't have to prove that our exercising our rights will not endanger or threaten others. The reverse should be true - those who want to limit our rights should be required to prove that our excising those rights will adversely impact the rights of others. So in the context of this thread, has it been proven that constitutional (unlicensed) carry is a threat to others? I don't think so.baldeagle wrote: So long as the government does not break into or encroach upon your right to keep or bear arms, any action they take would be constitutional by legal definition. No right is absolute. All rights must be balanced against the rights of others.
...
Similarly, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you may not do so in a manner that is threatening to or endangers other people. The question is obviously raised, who decides what is threatening to or endangers other people? The answer is the people do, through their representatives. So, if you want "constitutional carry" (or more accurately unlicensed carry), you must convince the people that it will not endanger them or threaten them in some way.
As it has been said many times in many ways, it isn't the carrying of a gun that threatens others, it's the intent and motivation of the one carrying it, and no law or license is going to impact that.
