01-29-2024, 05:55 PM
(01-29-2024, 05:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: See, and this is the part that I think people aren't necessarily seeing. As you pointed out, it is irresponsible to the point of stupidity to leave a firearm visible in an unattended vehicle. However, it is charging someone for potentially being a victim.
Absolutely Amazing that you can see this so point so clearly when it completely eludes others.
Quote:It isn't a 100% comparison, but let's look at this in line with sexual assault. Yeah, yeah, there are laws against public nudity because we are a prudish country. But say the law against public nudity was stated to exist because a woman running around with her tits out would just entice rapists? It would be like an invitation for someone to come along and sexually assault her because she made it available to them. If that was the reasoning for the law we would rightfully say it was victim blaming and fining a woman $500 because her exposed breasts could potentially lead to her being sexually assaulted would be something that many on the left would, rightfully, cry foul over.
Careful. Making this kind of comparison is apparently a personal attack and an insult.
Quote:Now, the comparison isn't perfect because if someone sexually assaults a woman they aren't then taking the tits and selling them or committing another crime against someone else with them, however the idea of victim blaming remains the same. As with many attempts at gun control there are already laws in existence to criminalize the behavior being targeted, we just aren't seeing the resources put in place to both prevent the crimes and investigate them afterwards. And I am not just talking about law enforcement, I am also talking about teaching people how not to be so ***** stupid as to leave a firearm in the open in an unattended vehicle.
Absolutely it isn't a perfect comparison, for the exact reason you state. I raised this exact point in the Rittenhouse threads as the same people made the same arguments. he "shouldn't have been there", or he was "asking for trouble". The problem being he did absolutely nothing illegal. He had as much of a right to be there as anyone else. His legally carrying a firearm, ill advised or not, is in no way a justification to assault him. Honestly, it seems the Dems at this point are all about treating everyone as a criminal except for actual criminals. it's why anyone who can say they can't find a single issue they disagree with the Dems is straight up baffling to me.
