Simple posession of any firearm inherently poses a threat to no one. Background checks, licenseing and registration are restrictions on simple posession, and as such, protect no one, and therefore do indeed restrain guns.Restrictions on weapons also are to protect others, not to restrain guns. Certain types of weapons inherently poise to great a danger to others.
Your right to swing your fist ends as it hits my nose.There is an inherent balancing necessary to rights as one right comes to infringe on the rights of others.
The swing of the fist, not the posession of said fist, is the determiner here.
This is why it is illegal to fire a gun into the air inside city limits, and why such a ban does not violate the 2nd. This is the 2A equivelant to yelling fire in a theater.
And one irrelevant to the conversation.I have a right - in my opinion - to not be exposed to the danger of someone with nuclear weapons living next door as an extreme example.
Even if this were true (and given that your right to be 'free from fear' does not exist...)I have a right to send my children to school without fear of the escalated danger of some demented person entering the school with a fully automatic Uzi in each hand.
My simple poseesion of such a weapon does not violate your right to this.
Even if this were true....I have a right to attend a Sarah Palin rally without fear of someone opening up with a fully automatic 50 caliber on us from a mile away.
My simple poseesion of such a weapon does not violate your right to do this.
You may not see it that way -- but, under the argument put forth here, it most certainly is, as simple posession creates a danger to the rights of no one.But I also have a right to carry my .357 derringer in my purse. I don't see it as an infringement that I first had to obtain a license