former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of

[patrice]

102. Is there any right that isn't limited by the extent to which it damages the rights of others?

I don't see gun advocates recognizing that principle; it's as though there is no possibility of any kind of situation in which unlimited gun-ownership will ever affect the rights of others to "the security of a free State" that's part of their holy 2nd Amendment. Accumulating assault weapons will never affect anyone??? There are no scenarios EVER in which those weapons could affect others not directly involved in their use? or require the use of public resources that would otherwise not be necessary were ownership of assault weapons not so un-controlled?

It seems odd to me that people apparently can't think of various things that could happen, things that would affect people who had no part in choosing to own things like assault weapons, it seems so odd that they can't hypothesize like that, especially when you hear such heart felt enthusiasm for expressions such as "from my cold dead hands" and other affirmations of what gun owners will do to protect their unlimited "rights" to gun ownership. I'm mean, do they mean it or not? It's kind of scarey that they can think and talk and act that way - AND - not recognize the potential for situations that will hurt other people and cost public resource dollars due to assault weapons and result in over-all oppression of people who chose no part of their weapons to begin with.