The would be gun grabbers position all shot to hell

As already just demonstrated.

 

Even if a firearm were acquired by a prohibited individual through a private transaction, can the prohibited individual legally possess the firearm and not be subject to arrest and conviction?

 

Irrelevent to laws that do stop unauthorized persons from getting a gun. You were the one implying that all gun sales go through background checks. Glad to see you have done some research.

 

Actually that is a complete distortion of what was posted.

 

Except such is not the case. Preventing the purchase of a firearm by a prohibited individual from a federally licensed dealer, does not do anything to prevent the illegal acquisition of a firearm by the same individual through other means. And since the prohibited individual can acquire a firearm regardless, the prohibition makes no legal difference since the end result will be the exact same.

Except for the fact that such is not what was being stated on the part of myself.

 

So you point is that all laws are useless because they can be disobeyed.

 

The point is that firearm-related restrictions do absolutely nothing to prevent the illegal acquisition of firearms by those who should not have them, and serve only to unjustifiably inconvenience and punish those who actually do abide by the law. Therefore there is no legitimate point in attempting to implement new firearm-related restrictions, when those that are already in place are going unenforced.

 

Wrong.

Laws establish the rules of acceptable behavior, and give society the means to penalize those who violate the rules. In a free society, we wait until someone violates the rules before we penalize them. Laws which strip individuals who have committed no crime of their rights and freedoms are not only anathema to freedom, but immoral.

 

But, but, GCAs have precog (ala Minority Report) abilities that they use to fabricate law, laws that work in their Utopia... you just have to have mob faith.

 

No you are clueless. Laws are passed to influence behaviors not to just punish them.

 

So people don’t kill people?

 

That bit of stupidity has no relevence to the issue at hand.

 

That was an analogy to what you suggested...so where does the stupidity originate?
You’ve been exhibiting that with your posts, and either lack of understanding or deceptive posts; which?
You didn’t answer the question; why not open the NICS to civilians as proposed by the Senator?

 

Laws don't influence behavior, the idea of punishment is what influences behavior.

And laws that are not enforced such as the many gun laws we already have which go unenforced in areas like Chicago are the reason there are so many gun murders in that city, a city with some of strictest gun laws in the country.

Get it?

 

Except for the fact that such is simply not the case. Not in the united states, and not anywhere else in the world.

 

LOL! You're arguing that criminals can be influenced by laws. Talk about clueless! And when the law infringes upon the rights of those who have committed no crime, then that law is an amoral laws.

 

So your arguement is that all laws are useless since criminals cannot be influence by laws or the penalties laws impose.

And I assume given your criteria as to what constitues an immoral law i guess you think seatbelt laws are immoral. Or laws requiring auto insurance. Or actually any laws restricting gun access.

 

Really so seatbelt laws are not designed to promote wearing seatbelts? And age limits for alcohol purchases are not designed to influence underage consumption? And the new spate of cell phone laws are not designed to change how cell phones are used? And then there are laws requiring food labeling and warnings on cigarette packages.

 

Nope the laws have punishments that are designed to influence behavior not just to punish the behavior after it occurs. If that is too subtle a distinction for you then just consider the many laws requiring food inspection or labeling or drug purity laws or auto safety laws. They may have punishments but the biggest threat to the companies is the damage bad publicity will cause to sales.

 

Your intellectual intransigence makes you incapable of comprehending what my "arguement" is.

I don't believe laws are useless; so long as they are constructed properly to protect the people's inalienable, fundamental rights. A law that enables society to properly punish a malefactor who has engaged in the brutalization of his fellow man is legitimate. A law that prevents the malefactor's victim from defending themselves against brutalization is immoral.

 

Correct. All laws are useless at preventing a particular physical activity from being committed. Murder is illegal under all circumstances, but the existing laws against such cannot physically prevent one from picking up any random blunt object, and proceeding to bludgeon another to death for no reason.

The only purpose of laws is to define a certain act or action as socially unacceptable, and proscribe the appropriate punishment for what said act or action is actually committed.

 

Correct. Such laws are designed to promote fines on the improper operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way.

Indeed not.

And the new spate of cell phone laws are not designed to change how cell phones are used?[/QUOTE]

See above. Such laws are designed to promote fines on the improper operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way.

None of which seem to be doing any good at deterring the use of tobacco products. The warnings exist only so the public cannot claim that it did not know any better.

 

See above. Such laws are designed to promote fines on the improper operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way.



None of which seem to be doing any good at deterring the use of tobacco products. The warnings exist only so the public cannot claim that it did not know any better.[/QUOTE]

You are clueless. But I respect your uninformed opinion.

 

Your opinion is noted .

And what gun control laws will meet your criteria. I guess none because you are just another hypocrite pretending to support gun laws while having absolutly no actual ideas.

 

It is a matter of fact, not opinion. No law, absolutely no law in existence, has the ability to physically prevent an act or action from being committed. The only thing the law can actually do is define some act or action as being socially unacceptable, and proscribe what type of punishment such a violation carries.