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

[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?

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

Guess where yours comes out?

Get crushed kid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

All criminal, and some civil, laws exist to punish people when they step outside the boundaries society has set for itself.

Gun control. as a whole, attempts to prevent people from stepping outside those boundaries and is therefore predicated on a false premise, as no law can prevent someone from breaking the law.

There's the difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

You post this as if it is some sort of great revelation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"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"?

Again -- you post this as if it is some sort of great revelation.

-Every class of civilian firearm is in common use for the traditionally lawful uses one might have for a gun
-No class of civilian firearm qualifies as "dangerous and unusual"

This applies to certain military weapons as well.

 

[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?

Hey Eddie boy, where did you go?

 

[The Rabbi]

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



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?

Hey Eddie boy, where did you go?

To high school. Unlike you.