The most well disguised, powerful but ultimately fatal argument of Gun Grabbers

[The2ndAmendment]

I've seen this pop up several times this week:

Heres a simple rule for the all or nothing bunch.

No laws will ever stop all of everything. But I dont see anyone talking about repealing rape laws, traffic signs, child molestation laws etc.

Because those laws exist to keep the law-abiding under control, which is the purpose and duty of Government.

I can guarantee you that OUT-LAWS, who live OUTside the LAW, care not for any of those laws either.

In the case of GUN CONTROL, the purpose of the laws are to disarm/control OUT-LAWS, not the law abiding citizenry. However, any laws designed to control OUT-LAWS who live OUTside the LAW are futile.

Criminals/OUT-laws are in fact in a constant state of insurrection against the Popular Authority. They do not recognize our laws, because they are in fact at WAR with our laws.

So every time a GUN CONTROL law is passed, only the law abiding citizenry, those who are at PEACE with the Popular Authority, obey that law and find themselves disarmed. The OUT-laws, who are at WAR with the Popular Authority only become emboldened as less ALLIES of the Popular Authority possess the means to resist them, see Chicago.

 

[rightwinger]

Why have laws against murder?

Criminals will ignore them anyway

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Why have laws against murder?

Criminals will ignore them anyway

So the law-abiding populace will not commit murder. The law abiding make up the overwhelming majority of the citizenry.

If there were no laws against murder, you can rest assured that the law abiding citizenry would commit murder on a regular basis.

Your Gun Control laws are written to disarm OUT-laws, as if OUT-laws, who live OUTside the LAW will recognize your Laws and voluntarily comply with the Popular Authority, with whom they are at war with.

Unless you wish to admit that Gun Control laws are only written for the law abiding, and not the criminals, in which case we must ask why the Popular Authority seeks to disarm its peaceful and loyal citizens?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I've seen this pop up several times this week:

Heres a simple rule for the all or nothing bunch.

No laws will ever stop all of everything. But I dont see anyone talking about repealing rape laws, traffic signs, child molestation laws etc.

Because those laws exist to keep the law-abiding under control, which is the purpose and duty of Government.

Those laws exist to provide puishment to PEOPLE due to their actions in violating others' rights... to deter them from doing those things.

WHich makes them completely different from so-called "gun control" laws, which exist to restrict or ban inanimate objects... objects which are Constitutionally protected. In fact, the Constitution forbids government from restricting or banning them.... and for a very goods reason. The same cannot be said about laws against murder, rape etc.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I've seen this pop up several times this week:

Heres a simple rule for the all or nothing bunch.

No laws will ever stop all of everything. But I dont see anyone talking about repealing rape laws, traffic signs, child molestation laws etc.

Because those laws exist to keep the law-abiding under control, which is the purpose and duty of Government.

Those laws exist to provide puishment to PEOPLE due to their actions in violating others' rights... to deter them from doing those things.

Which People? The law-abiding or the OUT-laws? OUT-laws, such as gangs, routinely engage in child sex slavery, ignore all traffic laws and shoot at law enforcement. They are at WAR with the Popular Authority. They neither recognize nor obey our laws, and would in fact be pleased and contribute to the downfall of civilization as we know it.

For the law abiding citizenry, most of them obey these laws since they are benign and civilized individuals, and others obey them since they FEAR the consequences of being caught. A small portion of the "law abiding" who function as peaceful/contributing members to society, will in fact takes their chances and violate these laws. Some get caught, and face heavy penalties. Some don't, and get away with it, but otherwise manage to conceal their wrong-doings and otherwise contribute to society.

But if you think these laws affect the OUT-LAWS in any way, you're truly naive. They rarely even allow themselves to be captured/detained, they fight right to the death. Maybe not the low-level dealers/gang members who joined gangs for survival, who would have preferred to be law abiding, but certainly all of the mid-level/top of the organized crime groups/gangs.

In order to debate Law and Government, one must KNOW what these are.

The Law are the rules of the Government, and the Government is the Popularly Supported Group of Individual flesh and blood Men with ARMED FORCE to enforce those Laws (rules). That's it.

 

[rightwinger]

Why have laws against murder?

Criminals will ignore them anyway

So the law-abiding populace will not commit murder. The law abiding make up the overwhelming majority of the citizenry.

If there were no laws against murder, you can rest assured that the law abiding citizenry would commit murder on a regular basis.

Your Gun Control laws are written to disarm OUT-laws, as if OUT-laws, who live OUTside the LAW will recognize your Laws and voluntarily comply with the Popular Authority, with whom they are at war with.

Unless you wish to admit that Gun Control laws are only written for the law abiding, and not the criminals, in which case we must ask why the Popular Authority seeks to disarm its peaceful and loyal citizens?

The law abiding populace needs laws to keep them from murdering?

 

[asterism]

Why have laws against murder?

Criminals will ignore them anyway

True. Laws don't keep people safe, a means to deal with the dangerous criminals is. How will banning guns by law keep us safe? Criminals don't care about laws and murder is already illegal.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The law abiding populace needs laws to keep them from murdering?

"Thou Shalt not Murder."

Are you claiming that without laws against murder, that no one among the Law-Abiding citizenry would commit murder on a mere whim?

Think of how many wives would shoot their cheating husbands, and how many husbands would shoot their wife who is divorcing him, in order to prevent his from taking his children and house and half his income.

Under your presumption, it would be perfectly legal and ok for a wife to shoot her husband for cheating, since there exists no law against murder.

Get real kid. This is why you're a LOL-iberal.

You don't live in reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are two categories of crime: Malum in se and Malum in prohibitum. Malum in se means the thing is bad in and of itself. Murder, rape, theft, etc etc are bad in and of themselves. That's why we have laws outlawing them and punishing people for doing them.
Malum in prohibitum means the thing is prohibited for some other reason. Owning guns is not bad in and of itself. People are afraid that owning guns might lead to something else. It's that "might lead to something else" thing that the law is meant to stop.
It wont. Nor are the laws between malum in se and gun laws equivalent. It is yet another false analogy of the left.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There are two categories of crime: Malum in se and Malum in prohibitum. Malum in se means the thing is bad in and of itself. Murder, rape, theft, etc etc are bad in and of themselves. That's why we have laws outlawing them and punishing people for doing them.
Malum in prohibitum means the thing is prohibited for some other reason. Owning guns is not bad in and of itself. People are afraid that owning guns might lead to something else. It's that "might lead to something else" thing that the law is meant to stop.
It wont. Nor are the laws between malum in se and gun laws equivalent. It is yet another false analogy of the left.

Look how I floored that kid [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] in the post above yours.

He'll either have to argue that there exists no law abiding wives who would ever consider shooting their husbands for cheating (a LOL-iberal utopian fantasy) or FEAR of the LAW was the only thing that stood between the wife murdering her husband (in which case he admits defeat).

Come on son, bring it, [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] !!!


[MENTION=24388]asterism[/MENTION] [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

 

[rightwinger]

Why have laws against murder?

Criminals will ignore them anyway

True. Laws don't keep people safe, a means to deal with the dangerous criminals is. How will banning guns by law keep us safe? Criminals don't care about laws and murder is already illegal.

Why do we make their lives easier?

If I want to shoot up a movie theater, I have no problem going out buying a Bushmaster with a 50 round magazine.

That is what they are for right? Shooting up movie theaters?

 

[rightwinger]

There are two categories of crime: Malum in se and Malum in prohibitum. Malum in se means the thing is bad in and of itself. Murder, rape, theft, etc etc are bad in and of themselves. That's why we have laws outlawing them and punishing people for doing them.
Malum in prohibitum means the thing is prohibited for some other reason. Owning guns is not bad in and of itself. People are afraid that owning guns might lead to something else. It's that "might lead to something else" thing that the law is meant to stop.
It wont. Nor are the laws between malum in se and gun laws equivalent. It is yet another false analogy of the left.

Look how I floored that kid [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] in the post above yours.

He'll either have to argue that there exists no law abiding wives who would ever consider shooting their husbands for cheating (a LOL-iberal utopian fantasy) or FEAR of the LAW was the only thing that stood between the wife murdering her husband (in which case he admits defeat).

Come on son, bring it, [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] !!!


[MENTION=24388]asterism[/MENTION] [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

Have you always been this insecure?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why have laws against murder?

Criminals will ignore them anyway

True. Laws don't keep people safe, a means to deal with the dangerous criminals is. How will banning guns by law keep us safe? Criminals don't care about laws and murder is already illegal.

Why do we make their lives easier?

If I want to shoot up a movie theater, I have no problem going out buying a Bushmaster with a 50 round magazine.

That is what they are for right? Shooting up movie theaters?

Yes, that's why every one sold has been used to shoot up a movie theater. How did you know?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

He'll either have to argue that there exists no law abiding wives who would ever consider shooting their husbands for cheating (a LOL-iberal utopian fantasy) or FEAR of the LAW was the only thing that stood between the wife murdering her husband (in which case he admits defeat).

Come on son, bring it, [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] !!!


[MENTION=24388]asterism[/MENTION] [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

Have you always been this insecure?

So you believe that Law Abiding Wives would never shoot their cheating husbands if there was no law against murder? Is that not what you claimed?

If there were no laws against murder, you can rest assured that the law abiding citizenry would commit murder on a regular basis.

The law abiding populace needs laws to keep them from murdering?

 

[rightwinger]

He'll either have to argue that there exists no law abiding wives who would ever consider shooting their husbands for cheating (a LOL-iberal utopian fantasy) or FEAR of the LAW was the only thing that stood between the wife murdering her husband (in which case he admits defeat).

Come on son, bring it, [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] !!!


[MENTION=24388]asterism[/MENTION] [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

Self proclaimed victories are so shallow

Have you always been this insecure?

So you believe that Law Abiding Wives would never shoot their cheating husbands if there was no law against murder? Is that not what you claimed?

If there were no laws against murder, you can rest assured that the law abiding citizenry would commit murder on a regular basis.

The law abiding populace needs laws to keep them from murdering?

Some posts are worth responding to....some aren't

Guess where yours comes out?

 

[tanfojam0]

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Thoughts? What defines "in common use at the time"?

 

[tanfojam0]

Also, an interesting opinion article on Fox News that defends Gun Control:

What everybody needs to know about our Constitution and gun control | Fox News

Quick draw Republicans in Congress, intent on stopping any gun-control proposal from the Obama White House, are way off target when they accuse the president of violating gun ownership rights under the Constitution.

Gun control is completely consistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And President Obama is on target with the great American tradition of proposing gun control laws for Congressional approval as well as by issuing executive orders on gun control.

The only opinion that matters here is the Supreme Court’s opinion. And the high court has ruled, several times, that the president, the Congress, state and local government all have the power to regulate guns. The Court reaffirmed this interpretation as recently as 2008 in the landmark case, District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants Obama and any other president the authority and the discretion to issue executive orders with the force of law over the sale of guns and ammunition.

Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged this in his opinion to Heller. He wrote that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Does that make Justice Scalia a crazed, liberal “gun grabber?” Should we file articles of impeachment against him?

That seems to be the thinking of Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas). He wants to impeach President Obama for considering executive action to control the sale of some guns and ammunition. Rep. Stockman also wants to strip the White House budget for its efforts to bring sanity to the craziness of a country suffering from repeated mass murders by gunfire.

"I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said. "If the president is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”

Sorry, Congressman but in gun lingo you have just shot off your rhetorical buckshot before having a clear view of the target, in this case, the facts.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants Obama and any other president the authority and the discretion to issue executive orders with the force of law over the sale of guns and ammunition.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order in conjunction with his signing of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which regulated the type and amount of guns to be legally imported into the United States.

President George H.W. Bush used his executive authority under the 1968 law to permanently ban the import of 43 specific firearms including modified versions of the AK-47 and the Uzi.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order banning over 50 types of assault weapons.

To be crystal clear: President Obama has the legal authority to enact gun safety measures through executive order. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of fact. And there is historical precedent. Presidents have historically used this tool to implement a wide range of public policies that they believe to be in the best interest of the nation. The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, was President Abraham Lincoln’s exercise of his executive order power to free slaves.

Nothing in President Obama’s rhetoric or his record supports the right wing’s claim that he wants to confiscate the guns of law abiding Americans. This is a paranoid delusion manufactured out of whole cloth by the National Rifle Association and the even more extreme group, Gun Owners of America. Unfortunately, this toxic nonsense has now seeped into the mainstream of conservative thought.

Even the most aggressive anti-gun measure being discussed, the assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), clearly states that current lawful gun owners would be allowed to keep their guns. These weapons would be “grandfathered” in under the Feinstein proposal.

The rest of the gun control measures reportedly under consideration by the White House are fairly modest and supported by the vast majority of the American people.

A USA Today/Gallup poll taken last month found that 92 percent of Americans favor a background check for every gun purchase in the United States and only 7 percent opposed it. According to the same poll, 62 percent say the approved of a ban on the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 bullets while 35 percent disapprove.

A Pew poll from earlier this week found similar results.

According to Pew, 85% of Americans, a roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, favor universal background checks on gun buyers including at gun shows. The survey also found that preventing people with mental illness from buying guns is backed by 80% of Americans, including 86% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats.

In opposing these common-sense gun safety measures under consideration by President Obama, the NRA is not only at odds with the general public, it is also at odds with its own membership.

After the shooting in Aurora, Colorado this summer, Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a nationwide survey of gun owners who are members of the NRA. Luntz found that 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support background checks on every gun sale. The poll also found that 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees.

To recap: the president is reportedly considering universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, banning high-capacity magazines, banning some military-type assault weapons and restricting the sale of guns to the mentally ill.

In spite of an avalanche of facts, some gun extremists still insist the Constitution does not allow the president to propose or enact – through executive action – gun control laws.

The straight shot here is that the same Constitution that guarantees the right to own a gun also guarantees the right for all Americans to take steps to be safe in the streets and even in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Some posts are worth responding to....some aren't

Guess where yours comes out?

Fact:

You claimed that law abiding citizens would not commit murder if there were no laws against murder.

Fact:

I asked you if a wife would not shoot her cheating husband if there were no laws against murder.

Fact:
If you had answered YES, you would have admitted you were wrong, as FEAR of the law is often the only thing that prevents violence against others, but you would have left the argument gracefully.

Fact:
If you had answered No, you have displayed you are a naive fool, and in fact would have also been declaring that you are an anarchist, since you would be implying that laws are useless.

So which is it? Are you going to answer Yes or No?

 

[RDD_1210]

I've seen this pop up several times this week:

Heres a simple rule for the all or nothing bunch.

No laws will ever stop all of everything. But I dont see anyone talking about repealing rape laws, traffic signs, child molestation laws etc.

Because those laws exist to keep the law-abiding under control, which is the purpose and duty of Government.

I can guarantee you that OUT-LAWS, who live OUTside the LAW, care not for any of those laws either.

In the case of GUN CONTROL, the purpose of the laws are to disarm/control OUT-LAWS, not the law abiding citizenry. However, any laws designed to control OUT-LAWS who live OUTside the LAW are futile.

Criminals/OUT-laws are in fact in a constant state of insurrection against the Popular Authority. They do not recognize our laws, because they are in fact at WAR with our laws.

So every time a GUN CONTROL law is passed, only the law abiding citizenry, those who are at PEACE with the Popular Authority, obey that law and find themselves disarmed. The OUT-laws, who are at WAR with the Popular Authority only become emboldened as less ALLIES of the Popular Authority possess the means to resist them, see Chicago.

Are there no "OUTLAWS" in Japan, Australia, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Israel, Sweden, Denmark, etc...?

Why aren't their "OUTLAWS" disregarding their countries laws?

 

[rightwinger]

Some posts are worth responding to....some aren't

Guess where yours comes out?

Fact:

You claimed that law abiding citizens would not commit murder if there were no laws against murder.

Fact:

I asked you if a wife would not shoot her cheating husband if there were no laws against murder.

Fact:
If you had answered YES, you would have admitted you were wrong, as FEAR of the law is often the only thing that prevents violence against others, but you would have left the argument gracefully.

Fact:
If you had answered No, you have displayed you are a naive fool, and in fact would have also been declaring that you are an anarchist, since you would be implying that laws are useless.

So which is it? Are you going to answer Yes or No?

Some posts are worth responding to....some aren't

Guess where yours comes out?