Guilty until proven innocent

R

rts99

New member
After studying the briefs in a number of 2nd Amendment cases it appears to me that the basis of the argument from the Gun Control side is that all gun owners are potential criminals. In short they claim that all men are guilty until proven innocent and because of this we must deny them the ability to commit gun violence. It appears that the left wants to outlaw man. Since we all have the potential to kill man must be outlawed. But we can't outlaw man, it's impossible. So what the left seeks to do is suppress our rights. Thus man is not outlawed, only his actions are. The problem with this argument is that it is based completely on the guilty until proven innocent premise. The fundamental basis of our laws and our society are the exact opposite. Innocent until proven guilty. This is where the majority of ALL gun control laws stand, IMHO. Suppression of individual rights by assuming that all men are killers until proven otherwise. The key to the debate seems to be bringing this simple fact to light. That gun laws CANNOT be based on guilty until proven innocent.

Note that elected and appointed officials are exempt from any silly gun control laws. So much for equality. The irony here is that those permitted to have guns are the real criminals.
 
You are exactly right. Seeing this from their perspective, they are literally trying to take over the world and have a one world government and bank...so...we need our guns.

If they want to premise that we're all potentially murderers, then the police should be disarmed first because they have a poor track record of abuses and mistakes, while I do not, and most gun owners also do not.

Outlaw crime, not guns. IBTL! :)
 
Please demonstrate through citation how elected officials are exempt from the law. We don't need unproven assertions. There may be local statutes for judges or the like.

The same logic goes for all drug laws. The idea being that the drug itself is not dangerous but will be abused.

So, are you willing to void all the laws and regs. on controlled substances?

The Constitution doesn't mention drugs but the logic is the same.
 
I would. Let the chronic inebriates wallow in it to their own demise. This from the perspective of a thousand guilty go free lest a single innocent is jailed, which is one of our founding principles although not followed today. The logic is exactly the same, good call.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Please demonstrate through citation how elected officials are exempt from the law. We don't need unproven assertions....
Click to expand...
Exactly right.

And in that vein, rts99, please support the following claims:
rts99 said:
After studying the briefs in a number of 2nd Amendment cases it appears to me that the basis of the argument from the Gun Control side is that all gun owners are potential criminals....
Click to expand...
Exactly where in any brief does either side argue anything like that?

rts99 said:
...they claim that all men are guilty until proven innocent...
Click to expand...
Who argued anything like that? Where? How?

rts99 said:
...It appears that the left wants to outlaw man...
Click to expand...
And exactly how do you reach that conclusion from anything in any of the 2nd Amendment cases briefs?

rts99 said:
...The fundamental basis of our laws and our society are the exact opposite. Innocent until proven guilty...
Click to expand...
And that is flatly an untrue statement. "Innocent until proven guilty", which is more correctly referred to as the presumption of innocence, is simply a legal rule affecting the burden of proof in a criminal trial. At a criminal trial the prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and should the prosecution fail to do so, the defendant is, because of the presumption of innocence, entitled as a matter of law to an acquittal.

If you wish to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of gun laws, and their defects, you really ought to better educate yourself in the law and the way the law works so that you'll be able to do so in a sensible manner.
 
With regard to elected officials being "exempt" from the law, there have been a few articles about states that allow elected officials (state representatives, as one example, judges, as another) to carry in places that are prohibited for common carry permit holders. (State houses and courthouses spring to mind.)

I think a reasonable argument could be made that in those areas where CLEO approval is required for permit issue, not many CLEOs will disapprove the permit application of a county or city coucilman or mayor without extremely good cause.

I also seem to recall several extremely anti-gun politicians who've been outed, over the years, for having carry permits (in jurisdictions where most citizens were routinely turned down for same, often due to the influence of those same politicians).

So, are the officials "exempt" from the law? No, but they tend to get the benefit of the doubt in "May Issue" areas, and they tend to get laws written in ways that allow them more rights than the less equal pigs. (Reference to Orwell, not a cop bash.)

A good non-gun example would be our own Congress, exempting themselves from the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Interesting, that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top