(February 16, 2016 at 9:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, there's certainly far less need for guns than there are guns. Even if we both agree that some people need them, or certain situations called for them..that'd still be no less true.
If I had no need of a gun, I'd still want one, personally. I own a few with no particular need for them, in the sense we seem to be discussing. I'm not sure that need factors into this discussion -at all-, though. What need do we have of press, assembly, or petition? Do we refer to our need of these things when we declare our right to them, or our desire to enjoy that right? If someone could not explain why they personally needed, or if indeed someone simply -did not- need the first or the third amendment (or any other)...or anything not specifically listed but touched upon all the same, would that mean something?
So, let's roll with it, let's say no one in the US -needs- a gun for anything. What now? People will still want them, there's still the second amendment, and there's still no solid grounds to tell them no. Why do these discussions always circle the drain of necessity when it's irrelevant either way we go with it?
I think need came into play when I introduced my particular situation.
I certainly wasn't trying to imply that need was the only criterion for the exercise of rights, only that regarding this particular right, it is need that has me shopping.
