3 ms·

Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? I

Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0.

koolba 3y ago
> Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? > I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0. This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. It's already illegal for a criminal to be in possession of a firearm. It does not matter if it is manufactured at or purchased (and the latter is potentially a crime on the part of the seller). In contrast, this type of blanket ban on otherwise legal activity turns yesterday's law abiding into de facto criminals. And many would not even know they're criminals unless they go out of their way to read the fine print on defense spending bills.
- Brystephor 3y ago
  >This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. right. the law is not to deter illegal possession, it's to deter certain kinds of manufacturing. > There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. Someone manufactures the weapon and then sells it. If you have no proof of possession you have no case. If you have proof of manufacturing firearms, then you have a case. Saying "law A should not exist because if law A were broken, law B would already be broken" does make sense if that can be guaranteed to be true, however it's not possible to provide that guarantee, therefore that logic doesn't make sense to go with.
brodouevencode 3y ago
I think his point was that for the people who would abide by the law were going to anyway.

koolba 3y ago

> Laws exist at deterrents don't they? An extreme example: if we removed all laws, would there be more acts of crime (as judged by the laws that were removed)? > I bet yes. Which means, the laws existence does deter people from doing certain things. It doesn't deter 100% of people, but the percentage is greater than 0. This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. It's already illegal for a criminal to be in possession of a firearm. It does not matter if it is manufactured at or purchased (and the latter is potentially a crime on the part of the seller). In contrast, this type of blanket ban on otherwise legal activity turns yesterday's law abiding into de facto criminals. And many would not even know they're criminals unless they go out of their way to read the fine print on defense spending bills.

Brystephor 3y ago
>This is exactly the point. The objective of these laws is not to deter illegal possession of firearms. That's already super, duper, triple, illegal. It's to deter the law abiding from exercising their Constitutional rights. right. the law is not to deter illegal possession, it's to deter certain kinds of manufacturing. > There is no situation in which a criminal could be charged with these laws, where the criminal would not already be facing decadess of prison time for illegal possession of a firearm. Someone manufactures the weapon and then sells it. If you have no proof of possession you have no case. If you have proof of manufacturing firearms, then you have a case. Saying "law A should not exist because if law A were broken, law B would already be broken" does make sense if that can be guaranteed to be true, however it's not possible to provide that guarantee, therefore that logic doesn't make sense to go with.

brodouevencode 3y ago

I think his point was that for the people who would abide by the law were going to anyway.