A perfect reason to incapacitate the criminals.............................NOT the guns!
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
A perfect reason to incapacitate the criminals.............................NOT the guns!
A perfect reason to incapacitate the criminals.............................NOT the guns!
It's the perfect reason to not have any laws. You think that saying criminals don't obey the law is an excuse to not have gun laws, then that logic would apply to all laws. You can't make murder illegal because murderers don't obey the law and what if you have to kill a murderer to stop a murder? It's total nonsense. There are good arguments in support of gun rights. Figure them out and stop relying on complete illogical idiocy. No one would say that the point of the law is to stop 100% of all illegal activity. You know it. Everyone knows it. Why do you forget it when you talk about guns? Give your head a shake ffs.
OK, first, there's the philosophical argument that widespread, unregulated gun ownership is an important check on government abuse of the body politic.
Second, the right of self-defense "precedes all affirmative law," and it is an infringement of that right to deny people the means to exercise the right. Guns are the hands-down winner in the area of hurting and killing folk, or threatening to do so, which is why police and soldiers don't carry swords or maces. Ergo, the right of self-defense includes the right to possess the reasonable means for effective self-defense. To deny people the right to have the tools needed for self-defense is like recognizing the right to free press, but making it illegal to own paper, ink, or a printing press.
That's the philosophical argument but does it apply to reality? Does "widespread, unregulated gun ownership" actually check abusive government? Are there countries without widespread unregulated gun ownership with non-abusive government?
That's an unproven premise. It's similar to the idea that an armed populace can stop can abusive government. Makes sense on paper but is it true?
The evidence is anecdotal, but I'd bring up the Bundy case in Nevada. Bundy was a scumbag and a criminal, but the fact that he was surrounded by over a thousand armed, white citizens seemed to cool the government's jets.
That, as I'm sure you know, would only be relevant if I had said "widespread, unregulated gun ownership is the only check on abusive government." And we both know I didn't say that.
Which one, the major premise or the minor premise? And what would you accept as proof? If you'd like, I will cite the case that holds that the right to self-defense precedes all positive law. And I can cite you the cases that hold that unreasonable or excessive limitation of the means to exercise a right infringe on the right.
Or are you disputing that guns are superior to swords and clubs as weapons?
I'm not sure that's the best example of government abuse. The United States is an interesting case study of a government that is widely abusive of its citizens' rights and guns do nothing to stop that. The only rights guns consistently protect in the United States are gun rights.
I wasn't trying to suggest that you said it was the only check. If you think that your argument can only be tested by assuming that type of unequivocal statement, and then say that statement is impossible, then your argument cannot be proven. It's a non-starter. We can now safely dismiss it entirely.
The premise that the right to self-defense precedes affirmative law. You can go ahead and cite the cases on that, but don't bother with the second kind (unreasonable or excessive limitation of the means to exercise a right infringe on the right). I'm with you on that.
Definitely not, which is why I didn't quote it.
Also fair warning: don't spend too much time on it. I don't think any cases would actually prove the point. I've already considered how the entire concept of using a case ruling to prove the right to self-defense wouldn't apply but maybe it'll bring up something I haven't thought of.
Having a little trouble running down the exact cite, but it's in DC v. Heller, among others. I'll run it down for you.
Beautiful.
Hero With Concealed Carry Firearm Prevents Mass Shooting in SC
http://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06...d-carry-firearm-prevents-mass-shooting-in-sc/
Hero With Concealed Carry Firearm Prevents Mass Shooting in SC
http://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06...d-carry-firearm-prevents-mass-shooting-in-sc/
Nope, cops say he's good.
Ah, to clarify, I meant the self-defense shooter, not the scumbag.
Where the heck is East Carolina? It has a college. Pretty good football program.
The relevant part, with quotes from Blackstone and Lord Coke and all those legal elephants, was that the right of self-defense is a natural right, existed before the Constitution, and was merely enshrined by the Second Amendment.
Which seems fairly obvious to me. I wouldn't even call self-defense a right, I'd call it an existential condition. Folks are going to fight for their lives whether it's in the law or not. And if you have the right to life, how could you not have the right to fight illegitimate attempts to take your life?
After that, we just get into the efficacy and functionality of guns.
I guess you are obviously missing my whole point. Let's say there are 10 more laws on the books regarding guns. How much would that decrease gun crime? Get my point?
If there was more effort put into identifying criminals and toughening up the sentences THAT might reduce the problem w/o any mention being made of guns!
There is also the part about citizens being able to arm themselves against their gov. Some say that is not what the second ammendment is about, but I doubt that there was a shift in policy between the SecoND ammendment and it's predecessin document....the declaration of independence. Surely everyone can agree that the declaration of independence spoke of the right to arm oneself against its own government.
Yep. At this point I'm focussing on the common law of self defense, but if you read back some, I also covered the part about how an armed citizenry is an important check on government overreach.
Maybe when I'm feeling a mite less lazy, we'll talk about what "the militia" really is. It ain't the National Guard.
Not even close. Armies, cops, whatever are tools and weapons of the state. I'll expand on this later, but the militia derives its power and its mandate from the people. That sometimes-hard-to-see distinction is critical.