Opposing view on Gun Laws

P

PT111

New member
If guns are outlawed then only outlaws would have guns. Would that make it easier on LEO's that anytime they see/find someone with a gun they can just go up and arrest them without having to worry about illegal arrrests. Think of it that right now if a LEO sees you carrying a gun he has to make a decision whether you are out to commit a crime or just someone exercising their constitutional rights.:p However if all guns were banned he could just walk up to you and slap the cuffs on you without worry of being sued.:cool:

Besides I learned in grade school that it was the Executive branch of the gubmint's job to enforce the laws and the Judicial branch's job to interpret the laws. This immediately causes a conflict as it makes in impossible for LEO' to know what the laws are when they can easily be changed by a judge.

If we just say that only outlaws have guns then that would take part of the confusion out of the equation. :rolleyes:

Tear it apart.:D
 
That would require law enforcement to be at such a level that it would be unaffordable and unbearable. To have two or three armed cops available for every car jacking attempt, every attempted mugging, every attempted rape, every robbery, and so on would require trillions of dollars spent on police and a cop to population ratio of no less than 1 in 10 and a level of surveillance of sci-fi movie proportions. (For comparison, restaurant employees are 1 in 100 out of the population.) Nobody I know of and for certain not I would want that kind of world.
 
The guiding principals of our government were not laid out and ratified with the intention of making life easier for police by creating two levels of citizens... police and everybody else.

Your logic could also be applied easily to taxes. Rather than fiddle around thrying to find out how much each person owes how about the government take everything and then hand out money "to each according to his need." Sounds good, doesn't it?
 
This question also ignores the fact that our right to bear arms is not about stopping crime or defending ourselves against criminals. A nice little bonus, no doubt, but the purpose of the RKBA is as a final check on government power.
 
If guns are outlawed then only outlaws would have guns. Would that make it easier on LEO's...
Click to expand...

That is not the point of the pro-gun stance or that saying. The point is that police can not be everywhere all the time. We, as citizens, must take an active part in providing security for our country on our streets and in our homes...to fill the gap where police cannot.

To say "If guns are outlawed then only outlaws would have guns" should be continued with the statement: "And those without guns would only become victims of outlaws rather than patriots and defenders of freedom."
 
If you take the phrase "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" literally then anyone with a gun is an outlaw and should be arrested. Naturally any LEO with a gun is an outlaw by definition. So what would happen (in a totally logical society) is that all the police officers with guns on their person would immediately march into the cells at the nearest jail and politely ask a helpful citizen to lock them in. I guess the other outlaws wouldn't, not being as inclined to enforcing/obeying the law as the police are.

I suppose also that the rest of the outlaws would indulge in an spree of law-breaking since they are outlaws and there is nobody to enforce the law.

Alas, my nonsensical scenario is not really so different from the real world: parts of the country where only police and outlaws have guns do seem to have more crime without the police helpfully locking themselves up for gun possession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top