imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Orygunner wrote:
So since the law only effects those willing to obey it, only the "prohibited persons" who are not inclined to commit a crime are affected. The ones who will break the law anyway will just go get them some other way.
Trust me, I don't disagree with you, you just aren't defining your terms right. The problem with this beliefis that it only has one logical end - the elimination of ALL laws. There's a fewflaws with it...
If laws only effect those that follow them, why have laws? I've discussed in detail, before, the woefully flawed method of arguing on the basis of "law abiding" vs."non-law abiding." The issue is predetermined outcomes that are defined by the terms you're assigning to people. It's like saying drivers will always drive and pedestrians will always walk. Everyone knows this isn't accurate, but, based on the terms being used, it's true. Drivers will always drive because if they aren't driving they aren't a driver. Pedestrians will always walk because if they don't they're no longer pedestrians. The problem is that the same person can be a driver one day and a pedestrian the next, and the original statement not only implies otherwise, it completely ignores this fact. Do you see where this is going? Of course law abiding people are always going to follow the law, that's the very definition of law-abiding. Of course criminals will always break the law, that's the definition of crime. Your entire argument is based on the the flawed idea that one person cannot be a pedestrian one day and a driver the next day. This is because you've left the person out of it and instead have personified the descriptors "law-abiding" and "criminal." The entire argument fails because of this.
In addition, there's the problem of the elimination of all laws. What you're saying is that, since laws are not 100% effective, there's no reason to have them. What statistics do you base this claim on? Can you show me crimes committed in a land with a legal system vs. crimes committed in the same land without a legal system? You can't. You have no idea how many bad people (not criminals, because the definer criminal predetermines breaking of the law) would purchase and misuse guns if it was not for our current laws. Moreover, WHY do you think your local MS13 member should be able to walk into a Cabelas and purchase a gun without issue, just like the rest of us good people? What makes you think they deserve that? How do you justify it? Let them buy their guns on the street where they run the risk of being robbed or killed. The safe, convenient, air conditioned store is where I buy my guns. Keep the trash outside.
So, we both understand the issues. I look at it logically and search for reasonable solutions, that's why I'm not an extremist. You're discount logic and reasonbleness and simply seek to do away with it all. People with your belief system are really just the Brady Bunch inverted. You're both not interested in fact and reason, you just want it all done away with because of what you fear
might happen.
Well, I would hope I'm not a Brady Bunch inverted... I wouldn't want to look like the INSIDE of an a$$hole :lol:
Sorry. I couldn't resist that.
I really don't feel like I fit that description, because I, too, believe I try to gather as much information as I can in a logical, reasonable manner to find the best solution.
I understand exactly what you're saying, and I don't agree this line of thinking can result in the elimination of all laws, because, well, what is the purpose behind having laws?
From what I can understand, the purpose of laws in a "free country" is to protect the rights of the individual person. We have a right to life, so murder or attempted murderis a crime, because it infringes on that right. We have a right to our own safety and security, so rape, assault, etc. is a crime. We have a right to personal property, so theft and vandalism is a crime, etc. etc. I don't want to get into the finest points of it, but I think you get my point?I know some laws don't conform exactly to that principle, but from any I can think of at the moment, I don't think we need them if they don't directly protect an individual's rights, but that's another discussion...
Anyway, So regarding laws related to firearms. I believe any firearm-related laws that do not either protect someone's rights, or punish those that infringe on the rights of others should be eliminated.A previously "law abiding" person can infringe on the rights of others by making a poor choice like pointing a firearm at another (directly threatening someone's safety) or even accidentally shooting someone (negiligent wounding or homicide). They could even decide to commit a crime using a firearm (armed robbery, homicide, kidnapping). However, these are all crimes that are committed by one person infringing on another's rights.
Whose rights would be violated if we allowed a currently "prohibited person" such asone in the current list (Felon, "domestic abuser" minor, etc.)to purchase a firearm? If they do nothing wrong with it (they do not infringe on another's rights), no real crime has been committed, has it?
Whose rights are violated by allowing unlicensed concealed carry? If they're carrying it for lawful self-defense, no crime against anyone else has been commited, has it?
Whose rights are violated by allowing people to carry guns in schools?What aboutby allowing people to own machine guns of current manufacture and allowing the unrestricted use of sound suppressors, without expensive licenses and taxes?
All of these things are claimed to be restricted because the common belief that someone MIGHT do harm with them, so we must do what we can to try and prevent it. However, indoing so, we are infringing on the rights of some, simply because others may do harm. None of these laws preventanyone from doing harm to others, because they will break these laws as surely as they will break the ones that are crimes against others' rights.
This makes no sense to me, logically, or morally. I can't think of any other right that's treated this way. It's the equivilent of prohibiting talking in a theater because someone MIGHT yell "Fire." It's like requiring a background check to buy a digital camera because someone MIGHT take pictures of naked kids. It's like asking permission from the government to exercise your 4th Amendment rights because some other people might be hiding something, and if you ever were convicted of ANY crime, you don't get to exercise that right ever again.
I believe I've thought it through pretty thorougly, and that's my current belief. Are there any gun control laws that you know of that actually
protect any individual's rights? If you prefer the broader angle, How about any thatcan beproven to have made any society any safer?
...Orygunner...
