When the Supreme Court unconstitutionally ruled on the Constitutionality of DC's victim disarmament "laws", "Justice" Antonin Scalia was quoted as saying "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home." (emphasis mine)
I, for one, have a lot of problems with that statement. Not the least of which is in defining "lawful purposes".
Overthrowing a tyrannical government is never "lawful", yet is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the right to own and to carry arms. Perhaps we could squeak through by emphasizing the word "traditional". The war for independence certainly set up a tradition that we should follow. But then there is also the tradition of keeping the exact same, or better, arms that are current military issue. Of course, the parasites in government "service" have decreed that we may not do that either.
Scalia's mentioning of "self defense within the home" is a cowardly way to try to limit the right. "Self defense" is the same no matter if you are in your home, on the job, in the White House, or on a plane. It is an absolute, unlimited, human right that can never be legitimately subjected to "reasonable restrictions". As with all rights, your right to self defense can be respected or it can be violated. Those who violate it in any way are evil and they are your enemy. Never forget who those predators are.
Do not strive to be "lawful" or "law abiding". Strive to be right.
------------------------------------