Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile
That depends on who you talk to.
I get what you're saying, but it sounds an awful lot like the "tyranny of the majority" cloaked in legalese.
Who decides what "reasonable" is then? And more importantly, what the range of "reasonable" behaviors is? Do we identify a median and then establish what one standard deviation is from that median? Is that "reasonable"? Two standard deviations? What exactly?
Oh, I know - we'll just continually re-test it in the courts, ensuring a non-stop endless supply of money to lawyers.
"Reasonable" in this sense only exists to make lawyers rich and keep the courts busy (I suspect it indirectly encourages our society to be as ridiculously litigous as it is today too...)
Maybe we should just accept people's right to be different and decide what's best or "reasonable" for them, rather than trying to prescribe and dictate it to them. One of the things I love about America is that we (supposedly) value individuality here. If I wanted homogeneity, I'd go to China.
|
Take two guys living in the same neighborhood. They obviously have the same risk of their country experiencing societal breakdown, civil war, zombie uprising, invaders from Mars, whatever. You think one guy has a "reasonable" need for a .38SPL and 100 rounds and the other guy has a "reasonable" need for a .50BMG and 100,000 rounds? That devalues the word "reasonable" so that it means nothing. What you're really saying is that each guy is free to have as much or as little ammo as he feels like and our society allows that freedom. I agree with that. Just don't pretend there is a rational, reasonable, or logical way to justify a "need" for both 100 and 100,000.