04-29-2021, 10:29 AM
(04-29-2021, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Really now? Care to elaborate on the explicitness of that civil liberty and the case law supporting your equating the right to own toxic chemicals with firearms?
It won't make it any easier because of the number of firearms already in circulation. There is no evidence to support that it would be feasible. If you have some, I'd love to see it.
I've never claimed otherwise. This is just a strawman.
And this is another false equivalency.
Considering I was only talking about that argument to point out I was not grounding my argument in that logical fallacy, I'm well aware. Meanwhile, you've decided to engage in a couple, yourself, with this post.
Fred loves to claim that the instant a "law abiding citizen" refuses to follow a law passed restricting firearms ownership they are no longer a "law abiding citizen". Interestingly enough this is exactly what Judge Benitez cited in his decision to strike down the magazine ban in CA.
https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-california-high-capacity-gun-ban.html
"Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals."
I guess the inherent immorality of changing millions of law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen eludes Fred. Also, I wonder if he feels the same way about people who violated Jim Crow or other segregationist laws. I suppose they were criminals and not "law abiding citizens" since they refused to follow a particular law. Of course, this is the same man who thinks the Nuremberg Defense is a good strategy for the other officers in the George Floyd case.
