It's more of an argument for enacting and enforcing the right (and just) laws. Laws like gun bans should insult every civilized person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you're saying that the citizens of almost every other industrialised nation on the planet are uncivilized?
But the US, which has one of the highest murder rates in the world, is somehow civilized because people can have guns??
You make less ans less sense with every post!
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.
?>>>>>>>>>>
Disgusting maybe, but true nonetheless.
That's why we have to have wiretapping, security checks, car alarms, door locks, etc etc to accommodate the fact that there are criminals in society.
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.
>>>>>>>>>>
What a ludicrous example!
When did an internet connection slaughter 15,000 Americans each year?
Please try harder - this is embarrassing!
ONLY WITH GUNS IS THE
RIGHT ATTACKED IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIFIC CRIMINAL MISUSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The right to carry guns is an invention of man. It shouldn't be used as an excuse not to control guns
There is no such thing as a gun problem . . . it is a criminal problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no such thing as a drug problem - only a problem of people who take drugs.
How much more of this semantical nonsense do you have up your sleeve?
Are you of the opinion that a provision of the Bill of Rights could be rescinded?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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
By the process required to amend the Constitution
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!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
So why did Britain abolish slavery in 1833? Without the encumbrance of a Constitution???
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 . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So far you have failed to prove me wrong on anything. I have patiently dismantled all of your ludicrous arguments.
I certainly don't share your agenda of guaranteeing America's position in having five times more murders than W Europe, Canada or Japan.
No they die in the name of an ineffectual criminal justice system that can not keep violent predators out of society.