Fixed it for you.
And echoing DuskStar, I'm damned glad I live in real constitutional republic that has multiple restraints on mob rule, AKA "the majority decides".
Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around everyone in your line of sight and holding the trigger.
You have the right for effective self-defense, but I have the right of not having explosives strapped around myself.
Which right weighs greater, and who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances where vastly different and firearms far less effective?
Liberty is dangerous. If you don't like it, don't go outside.
First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target and what's behind it."
Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states, have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an acceptable tradeoff.
The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.
So limit the signal of the remote trigger.
The analogy is still basically sounds, ie only as flawed as any other analogy.
My point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide who should hold that power.
I'm not arguing for or against banning guns, I'm arguing for the right to make that decision.
Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.
That'll be a big comfort to anyone who got shot before the police arrived.
I'll stop here - I'm getting cranky, and if I don't I'll start calling people ugly and stupid ;)
Maybe that's true where you live, but I live in a constitutional republic where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution, and therefore it isn't up to "society" to decide who should hold that power.
Rather, "society" decides who shouldn't hold it (e.g. felons, the severely mentally ill, unsupervised children, and they have to have serious reasons for such bans), everyone else by default can.
To quote myself:
who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances were vastly different and firearms far less effective?
Circumstances change. Stopping to adapt is normally not a winning strategy.
And I promise to stop trying to slaughter your sacred cow - at least for now ;)
How about 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states, which is the standard for amending the constitution, not a simple majority? If you really think what the constitution says is outdated, that's what you should be advocating, not that we simply ignore it.
Sure, "society" can change what I outlined about the enumerated RKBA. Just get 2/3rds of each house of the Congress, or a Constitutional Convention to propose it, and then the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.
This being in the US constitution only indicates that society in the US finds this rule very important. Putting it in the constitution makes it hard to change or abolish the rule.
Hard to change is different from unchangeable, though. Extreme example: if the constitution were unchangeable, slavery would not be constitutionally prohibited.
So, this is up to society.
I mean, they're not even willing to deal with the question of whether we have a right to bear arms (cert denied in the NY state may issue appeal). That said, it will get very interesting when Illinois goes full Constitutional Carry on June 9th, or, well, after the District courts enjoin the state from enforcing its unique besides Hawaii absolutely no issue law. And we'll have to see if they and the Circuit court will play wack-a-mole with all the localities that will ban or unduly restrict concealed carry.
(In theory the legislature could fix this, but a supermajority is needed to override Chicago home rule, and that's not happening. And the most the rest of the state is willing to give to Chicago failed.)
And thus we have a circuit split, with another decision from Maryland being appealed to the Supremes.