NRA/ORA stand on open carry?

[Glocktogo]

It is a fine argument for the internet or a philosophy class.

I disagree completely in the real world and if you TRULY bought what you are writing, you wouldn't participate in the misguided encroachments by your employer but you do on a daily basis.

I simply believe that anything written by man is inherently flawed and open to interpretation. To what degree is the question.

Michael Brown

It's a fine argument for the real world too. I can accomplish more good from the inside than I can sitting at home griping on the internet, so I choose to participate in an active role. I believe our citizens would rather deal with me than some of the "by the book" types in my field.

Of course anything written by man is inherently flawed, be it the Constitution, BoR, Amendments, federal laws and regulations or even the Bible. But I believe the writings of the founders are much clearer and grounded in common sense than most of the federal regulations I'm tasked with enforcing. If you want to see some inherently flawed writing, take a look at Title 49 C.F.R.!

I'm not advocating the abandonment of common sense. I'm saying that an interpretation of the founders writings as they would be understood in their day IS a common sense approach. Rather than interpret them by todays standards, we should bring about the change our society needs to return to our roots. We've strayed too far afield in our search for a "better" way.

 

[crazy8]

It's a fine argument for the real world too. I can accomplish more good from the inside than I can sitting at home griping on the internet, so I choose to participate in an active role. I believe our citizens would rather deal with me than some of the "by the book" types in my field.

Of course anything written by man is inherently flawed, be it the Constitution, BoR, Amendments, federal laws and regulations or even the Bible. But I believe the writings of the founders are much clearer and grounded in common sense than most of the federal regulations I'm tasked with enforcing. If you want to see some inherently flawed writing, take a look at Title 49 C.F.R.!

I'm not advocating the abandonment of common sense. I'm saying that an interpretation of the founders writings as they would be understood in their day IS a common sense approach. Rather than interpret them by todays standards, we should bring about the change our society needs to return to our roots. We've strayed too far afield in our search for a "better" way.

Where do I sign up?

 

[marvinvwinkle]

I also disagree with Mr Brown. The whole concept that the BOR should change with time is a progressive argument and is what is wrong with our society today. The three branches of government has become so progressive that political correctness rules our society. This difference is what distinguishes between conservative and liberal. I choose to believe our founders wrote a document that stands for all time even though they could not see the future, they did have divine or inspired guidance in writing the documents that formed the foundation of our government. There has been an attempt to remove or ignore our Basic Rights and turn us back to the laws set forth in the countries from which our founders fled and fought to establish a country based on basic individual human rights. That is what today seeks to remember those that served this country and died standing for those rights. I think it is a disgrace that our rights are being chipped away and that some are attempting to justify doing so under the guise of progressive socialistic justice.

 

[Michael Brown]

Let's not get so self-rightous to point to the founders as paragons of virtue or that their words/terms were so forward thinking that they are untouchable. These were just humans; nothing more.

Let's not forget that those "inalienable human rights" didn't apply to everyone.

Times change and don't forget that some terms like in the 4th amendment are not well defined in the BoR or in the Federalist Papers so they must be interpreted in the manner that the magistrate feels is most appropriate i.e. what is unreasonable?

Reasonableness has always been defined based on context.

I would also suggest that many feel "keep and bear" is also contextual i.e. at times when the government is becoming too oppressive but who decides what is too oppressive since the majority in this country probably isn't interested in an armed revolution at this time?

Michael Brown

 

[marvinvwinkle]

Not being self-righteous, just being factual. No the founding fathers were not just other men, they were selected to bring a new nation into being and to sustain it from people that would want to revert back to monarchist rule. They made mistakes just like everyone else, but they spent much time debating each and every item in the Constitution knowing it would be twisted and spun by people that would try to destroy it. They tried to write it so that people that were educated and those that were not could understand it. It is obvious that there are still people trying to tear it down. The founding fathers not only wrote a concrete document, but the gave up their fortunes and in many cases their lives to do so. I have a relative that signed the Constitution and lost everything including his wife a children because of it.
I, Mr Brown, have a problem with any person who would lesson the sacrifice that these individuals underwent to insure all US citizens have a right to succeed, not have it handed to them under the guise of social justice. I believe they and my ancestors all believed you help your neighbors if they were in need of a hand up. I doubt very seriously they envisioned welfare, unemployment for two years, and redistribution of wealth.
I apologize to the OP for an inadvertent hi-jacking of this thread, but some of us self-righteous persons don't agree with the overt destruction of our Constitution and BOR. The veto of open carry is an example of this.

 

[thayton]

I would also suggest that many feel "keep and bear" is also contextual i.e. at times when the government is becoming too oppressive but who decides what is too oppressive since the majority in this country probably isn't interested in an armed revolution at this time?

Michael Brown

Not yet but I'm sure the government will keep working on it.

 

[Werewolf]

Actually, I see a lot of misguided encroachments on the BoR by my employers. I do what I can to offset that mentality, which is difficult at times. For all the training we get, we get none on the BoR, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, etc. When fusion centers are listing the flying of the American flag as a possible sign of anti-government types, we have a problem.

I do not believe the BoR to be a living document. I do not believe in watering it down, altering its application, etc. based on current events. There's a perfectly good mechanism in place to modify or alter it. Its called the Amendment process, and its tough to implement on purpose.

In the time of the Founding Fathers, there were privateers with merchant warships. That's more firepower than the current state of the 2nd Amendment allows without heavy regulation. Mike Dillon has a Navy jet fighter with a live 20mm cannon, do you think it should be illegal for him to own it?

I think the founders interacted plenty. They weren't all isolated on their farms. Many of them sat down regularly, in taverns and other establishments. Tun Tavern saw plenty of activity, being the place of origin for the St. George's Society, St. Andrew's Society, the Pennsylvania Militia, some of the first meetings of the Masons and the Continental Congress. Let's not forget the birthplace of one of the greatest organizations ever invented either, The United States Marine Corps!

The automobile replaced the horse, but I believe the founders would be mounting weapons on them today if they were around. They would marvel at the destructive power of our weapons, and probably wonder why we were still at war. But these are merely differences of scale and scope, not ideals or beliefs.

While I respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. It's these very encroachments that devalue our morals and ethics. The slope has become ever more slippery since the industrial revolution began. Perhaps if we had stayed true to the founders all these years, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are today?

Halleluja!!!

 

[Werewolf]

Let's not get so self-rightous to point to the founders as paragons of virtue or that their words/terms were so forward thinking that they are untouchable. These were just humans; nothing more.

Let's not forget that those "inalienable human rights" didn't apply to everyone.

Times change and don't forget that some terms like in the 4th amendment are not well defined in the BoR or in the Federalist Papers so they must be interpreted in the manner that the magistrate feels is most appropriate i.e. what is unreasonable?

Reasonableness has always been defined based on context. ...

Michael Brown

Without absolutes one can justify just about anything. Which is exactly what is wrong with your line of argument, commonly referred to as cultural or social relativism. Cultural relativists get to pick and choose what is reasonable, right or wrong, what is acceptable and what isn't all in the name of context, or societal necessity or even religion.

Incest? Commonly practiced by many cultures throughout history. Right or wrong.

Cannibalism? Commonly practiced by many cultures throughout history. Right or wrong.

Ritual murder? Commonly practiced by many cultures throughout history. Right or wrong.

Is a religious dictatorship a good or bad thing?

How about chunking newborn babies into the ocean because they were born with a defect (practiced by the natives of one of our 50 states - can you gues which one?)

And the Bill of Rights is a living document to be interpreted based on "changing times", right?

That's really worked out well hasn't it.

"Papers please", no knock warrants, no warrant searches in the name of officer safety (can't get more reasonable than that now can we?), little ole ladies kicked out of their ancestral homes to make way for a walmart, carrying a firearm for protection is a priviledge and not a right, God has been kicked out of the schools, free speech(?) PC is gutting it even without the court's help. Speedy trial? compared to what -ROFLMAO, and the 9th and 10th amendments have been interpreted into oblivion while the interstate commerce clause in the main body of the constitution has been interpreted to the point where congress can do just about anything it wants using it as justification. the only amendment not perverted so far is the 3rd but some day the goobermint will get tired of building and paying for housing for the troops because it'll be totally reasonable to house them in our homes (for our own protection mind you) and you'll have one sitting at your dinner table every night eating your food and sleeping in your daughter's bed courtesy of the changing times and the philosophy of cultural/social relativism that rules our courts these days.

Yeah! I'd have to say that interpreting the constitution based on the changing times has worked out oh so very well.

 

[Michael Brown]

Without absolutes one can justify just about anything. Which is exactly what is wrong with your line of argument, commonly referred to as cultural or social relativism. Cultural relativists get to pick and choose what is reasonable, right or wrong, what is acceptable and what isn't all in the name of context, or societal necessity or even religion.

Incest? Commonly practiced by many cultures throughout history. Right or wrong.

Cannibalism? Commonly practiced by many cultures throughout history. Right or wrong.

Ritual murder? Commonly practiced by many cultures throughout history. Right or wrong.

Is a religious dictatorship a good or bad thing?

How about chunking newborn babies into the ocean because they were born with a defect (practiced by the natives of one of our 50 states - can you gues which one?)

And the Bill of Rights is a living document to be interpreted based on "changing times", right?

That's really worked out well hasn't it.

"Papers please", no knock warrants, no warrant searches in the name of officer safety (can't get more reasonable than that now can we?), little ole ladies kicked out of their ancestral homes to make way for a walmart, carrying a firearm for protection is a priviledge and not a right, God has been kicked out of the schools, free speech(?) PC is gutting it even without the court's help. Speedy trial? compared to what -ROFLMAO, and the 9th and 10th amendments have been interpreted into oblivion while the interstate commerce clause in the main body of the constitution has been interpreted to the point where congress can do just about anything it wants using it as justification. the only amendment not perverted so far is the 3rd but some day the goobermint will get tired of building and paying for housing for the troops because it'll be totally reasonable to house them in our homes (for our own protection mind you) and you'll have one sitting at your dinner table every night eating your food and sleeping in your daughter's bed courtesy of the changing times and the philosophy of cultural/social relativism that rules our courts these days.

Yeah! I'd have to say that interpreting the constitution based on the changing times has worked out oh so very well.

What's the choice given that reasonableness is not defined?

I searched numerous definitions of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" and I cannot find any that don't boil down to opinion, which certainly changes from person to person, thus making it logical that it would change from generation to generation.

My opinion is that the founders left it this way because they recognized that things change.

If it is going to be concrete, it must be defined and since that wasn't addressed and many of the concerns that occur today in the 4th amendment weren't even in existance at that time, it has to be left up to the interpretation of those who apply it.

If you REALLY believe what you are saying i.e. the BoR is absolute in its wording and leaves no room for interpretation, I think the word "unreasonable" makes my point for me.

Your terribly dramatic examples of social relativism are so far off the charts that it makes the rest of your argument difficult to take seriously.

Michael Brown

 

[Werewolf]

What's the choice given that reasonableness is not defined?

I searched numerous definitions of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" and I cannot find any that don't boil down to opinion, which certainly changes from person to person, thus making it logical that it would change from generation to generation.

I won't argue that... It just proves my point. Reasonable is a function of culture and that culture's members. It is one factor of social relativism and is quite often used to bolster the argument for it. In a practical world with real concerns and real people the written word cannot possibly cover every exigency. Nor should the written word try but as a society of laws we do try. And that is what neccesitates some absolutes.

The BOR's is one of those absolutes - a foundation if you will. Foundations should be strong and not easily modified if they are to stand the test of time.

We'll use the 2nd as an example just because this is a gun board.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How that can be interpreted to the point where there are over 20,000 federal gun laws and God knows how many at the state level is beyond me. It's so simple as to defy any possible reason for the over thinking and interpretation that led to 20,000+ laws as anything other than a governmental power grab to limit the people's ability to retain control of the government as it was originally set up.

As many have said, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't the lawyers and judges get.

Infringed is infringed. Unlike the word regulated as used in the 2nd, infringed meant the same thing 227 years ago as it does today, "Don't mess with a person's right to keep (own) and bear (carry around) arms". Pretty simple. But braniacs can't deal with simple and unfortunately those in power don't really trust the people so they use the braniacs to BS their way thru interpreting what was written to mean what ever they say it means to put as many barriers as they can get away with to keep people from acquiring arms that is their natural right to keep and BEAR. And how do they do it. All in the name of reasonableness.

the 2nd is not difficult to understand and nowhere in it does it say anything about reasonable infringement. Not in there.Nope. Just not there.

If reasonable is what the founders meant it is what they would have written.

The 2nd is a good example of the necessity for an absolute.

All the other 9 amendments are also absolutes and are written as such they've just been less interpreted than the 2nd though the 4th and 5th are running a close 2nd and 3rd.

Your terribly dramatic examples of social relativism are so far off the charts that it makes the rest of your argument difficult to take seriously.

Michael Brown

Some times it takes a sledge hammer across the noggin to get some people's attention...