Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA/ORA stand on open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 1157338" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>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. <strong>Nor should the written word try but as a society of laws we do try. And that is what neccesitates some absolutes.</strong></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>We'll use the 2nd as an example just because this is a gun board.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>As many have said, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't the lawyers and judges get.</p><p> </p><p>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. <strong>All in the name of reasonableness.</strong></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>If reasonable is what the founders meant it is what they would have written.</p><p> </p><p><strong>The 2nd is a good example of the necessity for an absolute.</strong></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Some times it takes a sledge hammer across the noggin to get some people's attention... <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1157338, member: 239"] 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. [B]Nor should the written word try but as a society of laws we do try. And that is what neccesitates some absolutes.[/B] 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. 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. [B]All in the name of reasonableness.[/B] 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. [B]The 2nd is a good example of the necessity for an absolute.[/B] 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. Some times it takes a sledge hammer across the noggin to get some people's attention... ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA/ORA stand on open carry?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom