@Garban Back in the 1930s when limits were put on machine guns, cannons and the like, it was well understood that irresponsible idiots shouldn't have unlimited firepower. Had modern assault rifle been common then they would no doubt been included. The founding fathers would roll in their graves at the idea that people would bring loaded unsecured weapons into public buildings and parks.

@Buttercup Indeed they would! The Framers were, after all, rationally minded neoclassicists and balanced in their political views, to the extent that such a thing was possible in the 18th century. Consider the weaponry available to the average citizen today when compared to the firing rate of the Brown Bess, the musket of choice at the time the Constitution was written.

I'd argue if he is abiding by the law he is being regulated. The store also reserves the right to kick people out of their store if they feel the need. Also how many times have you seen someone walking around in public with their rifle? I'd bet never. I've lived in the south for most of my life and I've only seen rifles in a person's vehicle not walking around. To see that is very very rare. Most people who are walking around armed are carrying concealed handguns and you probably pass them every day and don't even know it.

@Tejas I have seen idiots with guns in plenty of public places in Dallas and the surrounding areas. Most are libertarian or republicans, I know because in many cases I know them personally. They are neither well regulated nor well trained in gun safety.

I also know a lot of people that conceal and carry, they are afraid of leaving their guns in the car, so they carry them into the bar, (a felony in Texas by the way). So many of these law abiding citizens are in fact uncaught felons. Not so well regulated.

@glennlab if someone is abiding by the laws they are being regulated by default. Gun training unfortunately is not required by law. Yes carrying a firearm in a business that primarily sells alcohol is a crime, that by no means concealed carriers in general are felons just not caught. A responsible owner doesn't mix intoxicants and firearms. Answer this next question honestly. How many times have you seen someone walking around with their rifle in a place where you wouldn't expect? Especially in modern day.

@Tejas Over 100. Don't forget Texas just went through a very contentious open carry battle. By the way, that is incidents, not individuals. That does not include the yahoos that want to carry a pistol on their hip like they are in the wild west.

I have seen more rifles and handguns exposed in urban areas than I ever did while hunting.

@glennlab I'm from east Texas born and raised and from my experience you must be actively searching for people carrying rifles around. Just watching those idiots on YouTube who carry a rifle with a group as a display of rights, they usually have the police called on them. So from my experience and knowledge of what happens to people who carry rifles I'd say you are heavily exaggerating.

@glennlab the recent battle in Texas was not over open carry. It was over constitutional carry, meaning you don't need a carry license to carry your firearm in public concealed or open.

@Tejas I'd say you haven't been to Texas in a while, or you would be aware of the battle that the gun nuts just won. I don't watch or get my news from utube. Maybe they call the cops where you live, but here the police provide protections to the carriers.

@glennlab I haven't been to Texas in about 2 years. I know of the legal battle because it happened here also. Police should provide protection to people practicing their rights. Often times though police don't know laws much better than the people practicing them.

@Tejas I was an observer at many of the rallies, you may be technically correct, but most of the protesters wanted open carry and really didn't care about the difference between open and constitutional. If you are aware of the protests then you should apologize for calling me a liar about the number of people I had seen with rifles. Calling something an exaggeration is calling it a lie.

@glennlab I did say "in places you wouldn't expect". I'll apologize if I offended you (which is rare for me). Given the context though (saying "from my knowledge and experience" and "in places you wouldn't expect" ), I'll stand to my statement. Hey if you have seen it over a hundred times, take pride in knowing you're right and I'm wrong.

@Tejas I'd say you are wrong and won't admit it, something that is all too common with you. I have seen libertarians come to parties where they knew there would be liquor sporting their rifles and sidearms. and I never expect to see weapons openly displayed at what is supposed to be a peaceful rally. I have seen counter protesters open carry as an intimidation of the lawful protesters, You need to get out more if you haven't seen it. Open weapons should only be expected when you are planning on using them. I don't see any deer in Walmart, so there is no need for a long gun in a restricted space. If you feel the need to carry a long gun in public, get a penal implant instead .

@glennlab going to a party with a gun is not a crime, nor is it wrong if you don't intoxicate yourself. Carrying a gun to a protest is not a crime. It also should be expected at a guns rights rally. Your opinion on when someone should openly carry a gun is irrelevant. Walmart is not a restricted place, nor is it a crime to carry one there. It always comes down to dick jokes when antigun idiots have no real argument.

@Tejas I never said it was a crime, so don't even go there, but I don't go to places where I need a gun to feel safe. . Why did you go down the rabbit hole of criminality, did you run out of relevant material. All I said is that there is no reason to have an exposed gun unless you are planning on using it. And, a long gun in a restricted environment is a stupid option

As far as my opinion goes, it is highly relevant, since this is an opinion forum.

@Tejas you don't see any guns in Texas????
None so blind as those who WILL NOT see.......

@Garban the wording of the amendment implies bearing arms in hopes of repelling a tyrannical government. So in my opinion the national guard is not a militia for the people, it is 100% government operated. Seeing as private militias in the US are illegal, isn't the 2nd amendment already being "infringed"? Also since private militias are illegal here, wouldn't that imply your interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be false, and legally it reads as private ownership of firearms?

@Garban 1. "being necessary to the security of a free state" what is the implication of that to you? 2. The national guard is 100% government operated. Governor of a state is a government official. Not to mention the president can and has used the national guard as he sees fit. My 3rd and fourth statements are following your logic of militias having the right to be armed and not citizens, and by militias being illegal in the US would imply that your interpretation is false in the eyes of the law. Or if your interpretation is correct then that would imply that the second amendment is being infringed upon by outlawing militias. You saying the second amendment doesn't apply to private ownership doesn't mean that is the case, people from all sides agree and disagree on the context.

@Garban here is a take from a couple popular in the skeptic community.

@Garban 1. Yes, protection from whom? A tyrannical government is the only obvious option (foreign or domestic). 2. Your entire point was that citizens don't have the right to firearm ownership. So by default it is the militas right to do so. If the said militia is a government entity it is not a peoples militia, therefore infringing the 2nd amendment. 3&4 an m60 is not something a normal citizen can walk into a gun store and buy. All automatic firearms are extremely well regulated and its illegal to own one made after 1986. Even to own one you need a special license and anything automatic is at least a 10k purchase. Not to mention the amount of automatic firearms owned by civilians in the US is barely a fraction compared to semi auto firearms.

@Garban 1. You said protection of the constitution, not of the individuals opposing party. I think you are stretching here at best. 2. Here I think you are purposely ignoring my point. 3&4 I don't see this going anywhere positive, we are arguing in circles. I don't see your logic and you don't see mine.