[Kamehameha34]

So I'm to be forced to dissect my own post? So be it. Consider your behavior excused.

Does a law that limits political punditry to certain hours of the day violate the first amendment?

Meaning: Limiting a right is still a violation of it.
How is this relevant?: Limiting the bearing of a gun is a violation of the right to bear them.

Also, why are you so determined to defeat the main purpose of a firearm? People openly bear them because they want violence to be the penultimate answer to resolution of a conflict, ensuring that the very last is injury or death to their persons. That's how self-defense works.

Meaning: Visible guns would preclude violence more than it would cause it.
How is this relevant?: Self-evident.

Burden of proof exists in both fields. Clearly you haven't thought out the implications of your argument. Should a law banning purple shirts with green pants pass because there's no necessity for that particular ensemble? You are proposing a law. Give me constitutional validation for it.

Meaning: One could propose any ridiculous law if the only requirement was a lack of necessity for the things it prohibits. This leaves the burden of proof with the one proposing the law.

How is this relevant?: You have to prove that hiding guns bears any constitutional necessity.

If I holster a gun next to the front pocket where I happen to keep my wallet, I seriously doubt that any attempts to pick it will succeed without first noticing the gun. Whatever line you have to cross to pickpocket someone with a gun readily hostered, I'm willing to bet that it is far past the one you have to cross to pickpocket an unstrapped streetwalker.

Meaning: I don't have to use a gun to benefit from having it visible, in the way that I'd be less likely to have my pocket picked.
How is this relevant?: It isn't really, but it originated from your question.

How many burglars do you know that have volunteered to body cavity searches?

Meaning: He already broke into my house, so I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't have a weapon.
How is this relevant?: It is not up to me to determine if a threat is deadly.

Legality has nothing to do with it. The highest authority is the constitution, regardless of the apparent lack of respect it seems to be getting.

Meaning: Constitution > Laws.
How is this relevant?: "Disturbing the peace" is a bogus law, if used against someone upholding their constitutional right.



Hopefully this has been explained thoroughly enough, and another spoonfeeding won't be necessary.

Now for the one thing you did respond to:

In the most recent look at the 2nd Amendment, the "Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia" decision in March 2007, it was decided that "bear" simply means "carry." The issue, then is about how you bear arms.

Let's extrapolate this to speech. Does the government have the right to legislate how you speak? What you speak of? Where you speak?

If you think they only have the right to legislate how, why just that?