fine i'll post in this thread instead.
I would characterize that as commenting on the wisdom, not questioning the need.
could be, but there are plenty of responses that appear to be questioning the need. Some snippets
I'm working out someplace else if'n I need a crew served weapon to feel safe.
I'm all for SD, but am having a real difficult time comprehending why so much firepower is needed for an average daily workout.
I have no fear of being set upon by a reinforced regiment of Attila's mongols or a chapter of Hell's Angels. Perhaps I'm just naive.
For my urban needs, I find a reliable double action revolver works well.
It must be a very tough neighborhood for a workout.
Let me get this straight; you feel that it's not safe to go to the gym without carrying Sig Rattler in your backpack?
What kind of gym is this and in which neighborhood - the Taleban Crossfit 24/7 in Kabul???
for context, this is how the SCOTUS ruling was described in the news (parentheticals mine)
Gun safety advocates (aka anti-gun advocates), however, emphasize that the court’s ruling was limited in scope and still allows states to regulate types of firearms, where people can carry firearms and the permitting process, including requirements for background checks and training. Democratic lawmakers (Democrats) in some of the states affected by the Supreme Court decision already have passed new firearm restrictions that they hope will survive judicial scrutiny.
The New York law, which had been on the books for more than a century, required residents to demonstrate a “proper cause” (aka NEED) for carrying a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Not only did the court strike down this law, finding it was applied unevenly, but it also established a new legal test. Gun laws now must be judged based on the “text, history and tradition” of the Second Amendment: What did the amendment mean to the founders, where did they think the right to bear arms originated, and how did they apply it?
In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment often has been treated like a second-class right.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he wrote.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...gun-rights-decision-upends-state-restrictions
If that's unclear, the central tenant is "need" vs Rights, and anti-gunners have used this to prevent citizens from exercising their rights:
"You don't need a weapon of war!"
"You don't need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds!"
"You don't need a semi automatic!"
"You don't need a rifle because you live in a safe neighborhood!"
"You don't need to open carry!"
"You don't need a gun that big!"
"You don't need a sniper rifle!"
"You don't need a gun that quiet!"
"You don't need a flash hider!"
"You don't need hollow point / cop killer ammo!"
"You don't need to own more than 100 rounds at a time!"
"You don't need to buy more than 1 gun per month!"
"You don't need a gun that small!"
"You don't need to carry a gun at x location!"
This is clearly, always an attempt to restrict the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Obviously, there are many actions which are protected rights which are very ill-advised. For example, the 1A allows you to say things you really shouldn't. And certainly, there are many acts with firearms that are protected by the 2A that are very bad ideas (eg. using serpa holsters). I wholeheartedly support advising our peers against doing things they shouldn't. But basing arguments on need is completely irrelevant to Rights and is an invitation for bans. The old NRA crowd saying nobody needs an evil black rifle to hunt deer was the cover clinton needed for the '94 AWB. Just my opinion, but at this date, I don't think anyone who says "i'm pro gun but nobody needs a ..." really understands the concepts of Rights or freedom. (ref Denis Leery's green jell-o rant)
Perhaps backpack carry of long arms is a bad idea but I assume from the fairly large number of companies offering backpacks and cases designed to conceal long guns, that they sell quite a few. There are probably quite a lot of people carrying pcc and AR pistols more or less every day. I have a couple myself and while i don't carry them around often, I'm glad I have the right and ability, should circumstances change and I suddenly find it appropriate. If for no other reason, it is widely accepted on this board that you must practice something for it to be useful. It's unreasonable to expect someone to be proficient at carrying a long gun unless he is allowed to do so. It should rather be encouraged. And as previous SCOTUS cases pointed out, "common usage" matters.
If I were to "call the cops on" someone I suspected to be a potential a threat, it would not be because I oppose the right to keep and bear arms.
There are a number of things that might cause me to consider doing so. Most are behavioral and would have nothing to do nothing to do with my seeing a gun.
I might be concerned about someone whom I do not know carrying a long arm openly, or perhaps concealing one , in a place in which its carry would not normally be expected. That does not mean that I question anyone's right to possess one.
It is simply the first step in risk management: risk identification. It is a basic element of situational awareness.
I would expect just about anyone to do something similar.
100% agree. It's perfectly reasonable and I would do the same. but that's not at all what GEM said,
Well, you had better inform the gym that you are carrying such a beast and leaving it in your locker. If my gym, if you are unknown to most and someone is up on guns, we are calling the cops to take a look at you.
followed by
Thus, I am there and noticeable concealed long arm waltzes in the door, I am paying attention and calling the law. If the person gets the SWAT team lookover, that is absolutely fine. The RKBA is not a suicide pact to support not having situational awareness.
Perhaps GEM didn't mean for his initial post to be relevant to the OP, as he attends the one gym in the country that the FBI has credible threats about and thus he has a special need (talk about posturing...), but assuming GEM would behave similarly in any gym in the country, and call the cops on someone attempting to conceal a long arm in a backpack for no other reason than seeing a concealed long arm, and then make a mild attempt to conceal his glee that someone exercising his right in a way GEM doesn't approve of would be inconvenienced, humiliated, threatened and probably physically abused by SWAT... how could such an attitude possibly be consistent with RKBA advocacy? It plays into precisely the anti-gun legislative agenda post-NYSRPA ruling, which as I bolded in the quote above, is to regulate the type of gun (you don't need a long gun) and where they can be carried (you don't need a gun in the gym).
Wait, WHAT?? Someone like this that thinks he needs one of those to go to a urban gym or walking around daily...... I won't say it. Theres the 2A right and plain old common sense. It would be a huge anti 2A if it was pulled or used these days. JMO
What does need have to do with his right? Do you need more than 10 rounds walking around daily? a semi auto? a larger caliber than 22lr?
The pro-RKBA tent should be big enough for people who want to carry rifles. Heaven forbid we ever have to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, we will almost certainly want rifles and it will almost certainly be preceded by some period of time where we will want to conceal them.