03-29-2019, 08:33 PM
(03-29-2019, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all I do not remember that discussion at all. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. But this is still a false equivalency.
Rather than have me dig for it, why don't you just answer it now. Would you be in favor of a national mandatory fingerprint and DNA database that would make it exceptionally easier for law enforcement to solve crimes?
Quote:Guns are dangerous weapons. Therefore we have to take special steps to insure public safety regarding their ownership and use. There are lots of requirements that I may oppose for the general public but be in favor of for gun owners. Gun owners are a special class of people who posses dangerous weapons. Therefore treating them differently is justified for purposes of public safety. I am not saying that every citizen has to register every item they own and be licensed to own/operate it. I am just saying we need laws like this regarding deadly poisons, explosives, planes, cars, large machinery, guns, etc. The fact that "arms" are listed in the Constitution and those other items are not does not change the need to protect public safety. We already have many laws limiting Constitutional rights based on public safety.
Sure do. What you're proposing is not among them and is, in fact, expressly forbidden by the law.
Quote:I'll bet even you agree that there should be some registration/licensing requirements for citizens to buy stinger missiles or anti-aircraft guns. But those are just "arms". So why the accepted double standard?
No one has advocated for this in this, or any other thread. Neither of those weapons has a legitimate self-defense application. All currently legal firearms do.
(03-29-2019, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What you call "abuse" I call enforcing the law.
No you don't because you can't Not only is what your advocating not currently the law, what you're advocating for is actually expressly forbidden by the law. Why do you want to break the law, Fred?
Quote:Citizens are not allowed to decide which laws are just.
I'm extremely pleased that the Civil Rights movement didn't buy into this sentiment.
Quote:They are free to protest and campaign in order to get those laws changed, but they can't claim that they are "law abiding citizens" if they refuse to follow the law. There are people who think it should be legal to have sex with a 14 year old girl. They will even point out how girls used to get married and have kids at that age. But that does not mean they are "law abiding citizens" when they have sex with those girls. Same goes with the possession and use of many drugs. Personally I think pot should be legal, but I don't call people who sell pot here in Tennessee "law abiding citizens".
Got it, Fred, you'd be the guy turning in the Jews to the Nazis or enforcing Jim Crow because citizens aren't permitted to resist an unjust law. I can't say this says much about your character.
