Posted on 08/29/2007 6:08:57 AM PDT by CNS
(CNSNews.com) - Opponents of gun rights on Tuesday, the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "I have a dream speech," rallied against gun stores in cities across the nation and urged more government action against firearms dealers.
The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence partnered with local organizations in at least 16 cities to stage demonstrations "to focus attention on the scourge of illegal gun trafficking," according to the Brady Campaign.
"We can't achieve Dr. King's 'dream' of what America can be when we lose 32 people every day to gun murders," Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said in a statement. "Dr. King's focus on civil rights and non-violence should lead us now to ask each other and our leaders, 'What are you going to do about gun violence?'"
snip
"I wish we had the power to just close that thing down," former D.C. Mayor and current City Councilman Marion Barry said. "We ought to put a padlock on the door, padlock it."
Barry's colleague, City Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, said "we cannot have anyone with guns other than the law enforcement individuals and our military that were guns (sic) were intended."
It's rhetoric like Barry's and Alexander's that drew the pro-gun demonstrators from the Second Amendment Sisters (SAS) and the conservative discussion Web site Free Republic. The counter-protesters shouted at the anti-gun demonstration and displayed signs saying "self-defense is a human right."
Video included at full story ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
the conservative discussion Web site Free Republic
Only fools believe that laws will prevent crime.
Actually that's incorrect. Laws prevent lots of crime by providing the penalties which act as incentive. The law against murder actually prevents most murder, it just doesn't prevent all of it.
I think you are misreading what Blood of Tyrants was getting at. One time I had spoken with a legislator about a certain problem and he said, “Oh we passed a law against that, it’s no longer a problem”—the idiot. He actually thought that just by passing a law, the problem disappeared. I believe this is what Blood of Tyrants was getting at.
That’s the liberal mindset, it’s your good thoughts that are what’s important, not the results. Liberalism is a mental disorder and I truly believe that.
No, I AM correct. All a law does is to MAKE something a crime and provide a penalty for it. Example: Before 1934 it was not a crime to buy a machine gun from anyone, anywhere, for any reason with no federal tax or government oversight. The NFA of 1934 CRIMINALIZED buying a machine gun without paying a tax on it.
Those terrible guns are always racist!
But it will be no problem to "achieve Dr. King's 'dream'" with more than 40,000 motor vehicle deaths per year, which is MORE than three times higher than the "gun violence" deaths per day. You don’t hear the little communists mouthing off about that, do ya?
No wonder they call them pimps. I would not give them that much credit, I think of them as whores. They are just playing off on Dr. King's name by using it for their anti-constitution, anti-American commie agenda.
Wow... That is such flawed reasoning I don't even know where to begin. If there were no laws against Rape, Theft, or Murder, would YOU consider engaging in such activities? If not, why not? If you wouldn't, why couldn't those same reasons apply to others?
The Founders didn't much care for "victimless crimes", hence the whole "face your accuser" and "innocent until proven guilty" they codified in their new Nation.
If the Law is the only "victim", then said law cannot be rationally defended against or logically prosecuted. As such, they should be stricken from the books as such statutes have lead to the mess we are in today.
What I said, as I said it perfectly logical and reasonable, and it's not the same thing that you claim it is.
I kinda doubt these are all "murders" which has a legal definition.
But then facts don't matter to gun grabbers.
Well, no. You said the law alone is enough to keep most people from committing Murder. This is so patently wrong that it is no wonder you are running away from it...
The law itself does prevent things, the question is does it prevent the things we want it to. For instance, if our government really wanted to eliminate gun crime, a great many of them could be prevented simply but making the mandatory penalty for committing a crime with a gun, death.
Would that be a good idea? I don't know... we'd have to look carefully at both he costs and benefits to decide. But it would absolutely prevent some gun crime.
It's an academic point, I admit, but I was only offering it for clarity's sake.
Fixed it.
I’m not running away from it, I stand by it. I just don’t think anything you said refutes it.
They ought to rally aginst the murdering gang-bangers and other thugs that they are birthing and raising in their own neighborhoods.
Um.... people still commit murder. Most people wouldn't commit murder tomorrow if there were no laws against it. These are FACTS that makes your statement kind of fall down on its face. It isn't LAW that makes people not want to commit murder. It's human instinct, social mores, religious values, and personal philosophies that govern such things far more than arbitrary Government mandates.
Things you pretty much gloss over and try and blanket by stating that people don't do such things because of some mere "law".
You are trying to talk about some big moral issue with the law and morality as comparative motivators, and I'm making a tiny little academic point of clarity. But the difference between us is that while I do understand what you are saying, you apparently don't understand what I am saying. And as a result, you're talking right past me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.