03-04-2018, 11:49 PM
The moral right of a document does not lie with the writer in a situation of procuration. It is quite common for people to direct others to act on their behalf, including writing documents (e.g. CEO's Presidents, the rich and famous)...). There's a convention followed where the person who signs a document then adds 'PP' (Per Procurationem), which mean 'on behalf of' or acting through the authority of. Or PPS Per Procurationem Secretari. In all these cases the responsibility for the document and its contents lies with the senior party or the party that commissioned the document. In the case of 2A where only one person can actually write a document that is clearly a collaborative effort is acting on behalf of others...and that is the end of the argument.
From an outsiders perspective I don't think the word 'need' is relevant here. You don't have to need it at all. You can have one because you are entitled to have one. For me it is different - there is no right to civilian ownership here and so I have to convince others of my need. It is called the 'Genuine need' and I must justify this need on every application for every individual firearm. So, I have been reading this thread quietly with amusement. Your right to ownership transcends the threads question and you should simply enjoy the fact that you can have one without needing it.
From an outsiders perspective I don't think the word 'need' is relevant here. You don't have to need it at all. You can have one because you are entitled to have one. For me it is different - there is no right to civilian ownership here and so I have to convince others of my need. It is called the 'Genuine need' and I must justify this need on every application for every individual firearm. So, I have been reading this thread quietly with amusement. Your right to ownership transcends the threads question and you should simply enjoy the fact that you can have one without needing it.