This! ^^^^^^^^^^Originally Posted by the Schwartz
[/End thread]
This! ^^^^^^^^^^
[/End thread]
It is a naive statement as exercise of rights is not and has not been absolute. Constraints on speech or the practice of religion are well known. Libel laws exist, and your religious claim doesn't not allow you to marry children.
Some gun folks claim the RKBA is absolute with no restrictions. That is only a misguided interpretation of the real legal situation. A given situation is ambiguous - walking into a synagogue in Nazi regalia and a Modern Sporting Rifle cos play outfit - is that lawful exercise or making a threat?
Again, lawful exercise and acting like an imbecile is hard for some to understand.
Could it be that towns in the "wild west" didn't care about the 2nd and there was no real recourse avenue for the citizens?
With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
Simplistically constructed "straw man" arguments are hardly compelling when one is trying to make a point unless that point is that one has no point.
For those not knowing what a "straw man" argument is, it is defined as:
A straw man argument is a commonly encountered informal fallacy that relies upon giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not actually presented by that opponent.
Last edited by the Schwartz; 08-14-2019 at 03:47 PM.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
Most of the books I've read indicate that the ordinances were either ignored or very selectively enforced.
Just like NYC today!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
The Schwartz - your post is the one with no point. People pontificate absolutist statements and then their arguments seize up when faced with the reality of implications of an absolutist pontification.
Is this OC argument, common sense seems to outrage some who proclaim their ability to justify stupid actions and display behaviors just because they may be technically legal. They think the technical legal makes the actions appropriate.
I am unimpressed by your inability to deal with the concepts.
If your so-called lawful exercise scares people, you can demean them (as in not being a True American) or you can enter in a discussion of why your lawful exercise in a good thing to do.In actuality, there is no need to explain the lawful exercise of one's rights to anyone.
I believe the difference is understood clearly and you can frame it a million different ways. Bottom line; There's a law on paper that states a person may open carry within these criteria. Doesn't matter if you or I think it's ridiculous. Doesn't matter if tactical timmy shows up and causes problems for every one else. Doesn't matter if a fence sitter gets turned off and becomes anti-gun. It's the law as written and last I knew this is still a nation of laws. Don't like the law, work to change it. You're pissin' into a strong headwind if you think it's possible to bring all gun owners to your position on this. Some won't just because. Some won't because they believe they are within their lawful right to do so. Many others don't care enough to get involved either way.
I dont believe it was anything near universal. Its known that some particular trouble spots resorted to that, and we know of them because it was unusual. Interestingly, in Texas, some large ranches, and perhaps some towns had more restrictions than most western states and towns.
When visiting Tombstone in the 1980s, it was pointed out that it was the only town in the state of Az that had restrictions on carrying arms in town, the restriction inposed by Mr Earp when he was involved with LE in the 1880s. I believe the state legislature later passed the preemption laws, negating that restriction in Tombstone.
Last edited by Malamute; 08-14-2019 at 04:04 PM.
Well, thanks for clarifying your lack of concern for other people. Not a moral position for most people.Doesn't matter if tactical timmy shows up and causes problems for every one else. Doesn't matter if a fence sitter gets turned off and becomes anti-gun.
Reply With Quote
