Thursday, January 23, 2014

Rejecting gun laws on grounds that criminals won't obey them is not 'anarchy'

The argument that gun laws are wrong because criminals will simply violate them is, therefore, in no way akin to an argument for no laws whatsoever, and it certainly is no argument for "anarchy."


Simon Jester said...

The word "anarchy" is being misused by them, and many others, all the time. Anarchy is simply without government, not chaos. Though it would appear that may anti-gunners equate the two, which doesn't say much for their self control.

Paul X said...

"Firstly, let’s just establish what an insanely stupid argument that is. The very definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law and commits crime. Criminals break all kinds of laws. They kill, steal, rape, assault, traffic guns or people, drive too fast in the slow lane, drive too slow in the fast lane, don’t register their car on time, under report on their taxes, and the list goes on and on and on. If every time we wanted to write a law to curb and discourage a destructive behavior someone said “But-but, criminals don’t follow laws anyway, so why do we need a law against rape?” you know what we’d have? A society with no laws whatsoever."

Somehow, I find this argument does not distress me much. In fact it is my goal.

BTW the stated definition of "criminal" is the ruling class definition; but if someone disobeys a gun confiscation law, is he a criminal? A more reasonable definition is a person who harms innocent others. That definition would include almost everyone in government, which sounds about right to me.

It is amusing that CSGV sees the truth of this even if they come to it from the tyrannical side of the equation. Yes, the logical end of the argument is that there should be no laws. Why is that a problem?

Anonymous said...

Laws pertaining to firearms are both just and warranted - at federal state and local levels, so long as they don't infringe upon the right to keep and the right to bear. This means that possession and ownership ( including buying and selling and gifting) along with carrying (openly or concealed both long guns and pistols) is off limits. That does not mean "absolute" or "no laws". Lots of laws can be crafted and imposed but they must be outside those boundaries.

Discharge absent self defense, brandishing in aggression, robbery rape murder attempted murder etc are all examples of proper laws. I'll even go so far as to say its proper to disarm one being tried in a court.

Like so many other examples in politics, the ones claiming RIGHTS aren't absolute are the first to claim absolute is proper - they claim absolute authority over the rights themselves - so much so that it's not a right at all, but just a permission government allows and disallows by "qualification".

Shall and shall not are serious terms in the "legal" world. It's past time the Second join those ranks regarding shall not be infringed. I believe and stand firm on the fact SCOTUS did exactly that in Heller by commanding government adhere to STRICT SCRUTINY when it voted to accept "The Second Amendment is no different." in the undeniable context of comparing it to the First Amendment.

This "anarchy " canard is hoisted as part of the attempt to "create" a level of scrutiny above "intermediate" but something less than "strict". Scalias short sentence destroys that attempt.

While contradictory in some instances, and outright wrong in others, the Heller - McDonald combination is the knockout for modern day gun control. They are screaming "anarchy" precisely because the banners KNOW THAT but refuse to accept it. Their "in the home" dogma didn't last 70 years like the "militia" argument did and they are now pulling out every canard possible trying to avoid admitting they have lost what they have spent a century and a half building.

Make no mistake, their claims will grow more and more ridiculous as the days pass. That's why we witnessed the idiot ghost gun video - only the truly deluded will be willing to take the gun control stage beyond campaign talking points.

We are indeed winning this fight and their antics should not distract us from that reality.

Gun laws must no longer target the GUNS, they must target the CRIMINAL action and it's actor. Yeah, what do many if us have said all along. THATS the counter to the "anarchy" claim and that message obliterates the latest chicken little attempt at saving "gun control".

So pull that trigger!

Ken said...

The definition of anarchy is not "no law," it's "no ruler" (literally, "without archon," or lawgiver).

Anonymous said...

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” -- James Madison in "The Federalist Papers"