It's more of an argument for enacting and enforcing the right (and just) laws. Laws like gun bans should insult every civilized person.

The enactment or demand for such a law states a disgusting ideal that the general population's behavior must be modified using the criminal's behavior as a standard.

Because criminals kill people with handguns it must follow that the 99% of the humans who will never use a handgun to hurt someone can not purchase or own a handgun. What a sad and morally destitute thing to do to a society.

Gun bans treat everyone as a criminal sans conviction . . . Hey, we let ya have a gun you're gonna kill somebody; don't bother denying it. Just the fact that you want a gun tell us in charge you are a troublemaker.

Sorry, for those with some affection for rights and liberty and government staying within its legitimate scope of power we must say NO.

The criminal code; federal, state and local, each address infractions of the social order under accepted practices of due process. Laws are written and enforced regarding assault or murder with a firearm just as laws are written and enforced regarding child pornography. However, no one advocates the blanket restriction of digital imaging technology, computers and internet accounts to address the criminal misuse of 1st Amendment protected items and actions. . . why do firearms get such special dispensation?

How can a gun-ban be anything but prior restraint? If someone advocated the ban of all internet transfer rates exceeding a 28.8k modem because they are "child-porn pipelines" they would be a laughing-stock. Anti-gunners can demand gun bans because they consider a certain gun to be "the criminal's choice," and they get news face-time and positive editorials in newspapers.

ONLY WITH GUNS IS THE RIGHT ATTACKED IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL MISUSE.

There is no such thing as a gun problem . . . it is a criminal problem.

Are you of the opinion that a provision of the Bill of Rights could be rescinded? How can that be possible if the rights of the citizen are considered inalienable by the government? By what authority could government be empowered (understanding that this is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy) to "take back" what it never possessed?
Good God man, you don't see how utterly backwards you are? The "will of the people" is what kept slavery and discrimination alive for so long! It was the principles of equal rights that the Constitution unwaveringly stands on that eliminated the scourge of slavery from the USA.

I would recommend reading The Unconstitutionality of Slavery by Lysander Spooner. Please note, this was published in 1845, twenty years before slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.

This begs the question, what was the holdup in abolishing slavery? (a), the principles of the Constitution or (b), the "will of the people?"

I think the question can be unequivocally answered noting the simple fact that the last of the states existing in 1865 finally got around to ratifying the 13th Amendment twelve years ago! Hear Hear! for the "will of the people" championing the rights of the minority!

Which begs the question, how could you possibly be so utterly and fundamentally wrong on all of it then????? It defies explanation except if you have an agenda . . .
Sir William Blackstone is an NRA wacko??? Oh Bloody Hell, whodathunkit?
No they die in the name of an ineffectual criminal justice system that can not keep violent predators out of society.