Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

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

No combination of laws will ever make the crimes of rape, murder, assault, armed robbery, etc. disappear, but the laws against these evils are necessary, to at the very least provide a mechanism for removing the perpetrators of these crimes from society, before they commit that evil again. Laws against certain kinds of guns or ammunition, or possessing guns in certain places, etc., on the other hand, criminalize behavior that is in no way immoral or harmful to society, and in fact criminalize behavior that might be necessary to preserve one's life and liberty. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "Political Garbage Chute" included minor traffic violators on the list of "criminals," along with murderers, rapists, and smugglers. They don't seem to understand the distinction between forgetting "to register a car on time" and selling stolen M-16A1 rifles to bank robbers. For that matter, there is a distinction to be made between a driver who unintentionally blew a red light, and one who is drag racing in a school zone. Anyone who doesn't understand such distinctions has no business talking about what kind of laws should be enacted.

Anonymous said...

I've never heard a pro-gun person say that any law is useless without 100% voluntary compliance. Most (legal) gun owners are hard-liners on crime, and believe in effective law enforcement, including severe punishment for violent criminals. But there is a difference between punishing someone for an act that is inherently wrong (murder, rape, robbery), and punishing someone for something that is not, in itself, a crime.

Anonymous said...

Many anti-gun activists are bleeding heart liberals who sympathize with criminals and terrorists. They see "gun control" as an alternative to punishing criminals. Thus, the anti-gun activists are the ones who are looking for a law that will have 100% voluntary compliance. That is, they keep passing more and more anti-gun laws, trying to come up with one that criminals will voluntarily obey.

MamaLiberty said...

The "law" against murder, etc. provides a way for government to punish those who do those things after the fact, obviously, but those who actually wish to harm others will not be stopped by anything written on paper. If one tool or method is made too inconvenient, another will be found and used.

Conversely, murder, rape, theft and other aggression would be just as wrong without any formal laws. The "law" does not change the absolute right of each living creature to defend themselves and their property from aggression.

So, the entire discussion of whether or not there should be "laws" against murder, etc. - much less against anything else, is more of a distraction than anything else. The question should be: How does any "law" actually prevent people from harming each other. Answer: It does not and cannot. With or without "enforcers."