Krupski
01-12-2015, 09:00 AM
See this link: http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=36461
And here's what I posted:
OK, think about this: Assault and murder are already illegal. They have always been illegal - and immoral. Also, assault and murder carry an incredibly high price in the form of imprisonment and/or execution. Not only that, but these crimes carry a high moral price (for those who have morals).
People who use firearms in the course of their employment (cops, military, etc..) need to be trained to overcome the natural, inherent tendency to NOT shoot. Their moral compass stops them from shooting and is very difficult to overcome. In many cases that hesitation can have fatal results.
Those who commit mass murder (or even a single murder) obviously have no moral compass to inhibit their actions. Nor are they afraid of the civil consequences.
I'm sure everyone will agree with the above.
So, now let me ask this question: Can anyone say with a straight face that a mere "gun law" will stop the criminal? When I say "mere" I mean that violation of any gun law carries a MUCH lower civil penalty than assault or murder, and since most of these laws are absurd (such as banning a class of firearms based solely on their appearance), there is virtually no moral reason to obey the law.
If we can agree that a psychotic criminal who does not fear the consequences of his actions will have zero concern for a relatively minor "gun law", then I must wonder, "what good is it?".
The "SAFE" (snort-chuckle-gag) Act puts law abiding citizens at risk of not being able to adequately defend themselves, the families and their neighbors while criminals are not at all affected.
Just whom is being made "Safe"?
The above is a question about the sensibility of the "SAFE" act and gun laws in general. Another, bigger question is, "How can the "SAFE" act be Constitutional"?
I suppose one could say that if the state allowed people to own and carry only one firearm, and posses only one round of ammunition, the law would comply with the letter of the law (the Second Amendment). After all, the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is not being infringed. You've got one arm and one round of ammo.
But does it comply with the INTENT of the Second Amendment - that all free American citizens have the responsibility and duty to keep and bear arms for the purpose of protecting and preserving the security of themselves, their families, their neighbors and the state?
I would say "No, it does not". Can you imagine a US soldier going to Iraq or Afghanistan with one rifle and one round of ammo? Everyone would agree that the idea is absurd to the point of being criminal.
Yet the "SAFE" act want to do this to the citizens of New York. Granted, New York is not Iraq, but does that mean NY citizens are NOT entitled to protect themselves should the need arise?
Please before screaming "we need more laws", ask yourself "what good are the current laws doing?" and "will a new law make any difference?". If you are honest with yourself, the answer will be "NO".
Thoughts?
And here's what I posted:
OK, think about this: Assault and murder are already illegal. They have always been illegal - and immoral. Also, assault and murder carry an incredibly high price in the form of imprisonment and/or execution. Not only that, but these crimes carry a high moral price (for those who have morals).
People who use firearms in the course of their employment (cops, military, etc..) need to be trained to overcome the natural, inherent tendency to NOT shoot. Their moral compass stops them from shooting and is very difficult to overcome. In many cases that hesitation can have fatal results.
Those who commit mass murder (or even a single murder) obviously have no moral compass to inhibit their actions. Nor are they afraid of the civil consequences.
I'm sure everyone will agree with the above.
So, now let me ask this question: Can anyone say with a straight face that a mere "gun law" will stop the criminal? When I say "mere" I mean that violation of any gun law carries a MUCH lower civil penalty than assault or murder, and since most of these laws are absurd (such as banning a class of firearms based solely on their appearance), there is virtually no moral reason to obey the law.
If we can agree that a psychotic criminal who does not fear the consequences of his actions will have zero concern for a relatively minor "gun law", then I must wonder, "what good is it?".
The "SAFE" (snort-chuckle-gag) Act puts law abiding citizens at risk of not being able to adequately defend themselves, the families and their neighbors while criminals are not at all affected.
Just whom is being made "Safe"?
The above is a question about the sensibility of the "SAFE" act and gun laws in general. Another, bigger question is, "How can the "SAFE" act be Constitutional"?
I suppose one could say that if the state allowed people to own and carry only one firearm, and posses only one round of ammunition, the law would comply with the letter of the law (the Second Amendment). After all, the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is not being infringed. You've got one arm and one round of ammo.
But does it comply with the INTENT of the Second Amendment - that all free American citizens have the responsibility and duty to keep and bear arms for the purpose of protecting and preserving the security of themselves, their families, their neighbors and the state?
I would say "No, it does not". Can you imagine a US soldier going to Iraq or Afghanistan with one rifle and one round of ammo? Everyone would agree that the idea is absurd to the point of being criminal.
Yet the "SAFE" act want to do this to the citizens of New York. Granted, New York is not Iraq, but does that mean NY citizens are NOT entitled to protect themselves should the need arise?
Please before screaming "we need more laws", ask yourself "what good are the current laws doing?" and "will a new law make any difference?". If you are honest with yourself, the answer will be "NO".
Thoughts?