Skip to main content

View Diary: Common Sense: "The carrying of firearms is strictly prohibited" (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are they saying you can't yell fire? (0+ / 0-)

    It's not an all or none. I thought it was clear that the common element was not whether they were an advocate, but whether they claimed that people were being restrained from doing something when the law actually punishes those who violate it.

    Are you getting this?

    It sounds like maybe you want me to be saying that advocates are like deniers maybe so you can turn me into a straw man and knock me down.

    I'm commenting on the mistaken understanding that people have of what the law does. The law against going too fast doesn't make it so you can't go too fast, and saying "you can't go too fast" would be wrong.

    The law against hiding a passport of child in your boot so you can then go bring a child from a foreign country back to the usa does not stop you from doing that, it just punishes you if you get caught doing that.

    Is that a little more clear to you now? So please don't straw man me.

    •  You are the one who brought... (7+ / 0-)

      ...climate change deniers and the slur "True Believers," meaning "fanatics,"  into this conversation, not me. So I am trying to determine what your purpose in doing that was. Pretending that it is I am who am making "straw man" arguments is a good example of the upsidedownism which plagues much of the gun regulation debate.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:35:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point is this. (0+ / 0-)

        Does the speed limit law restrain you from speeding?
        A) Yes
        B) No

        If you answered A, then you do not understand what the law does. I predict that every time someone doesn't follow the law you will scream and howl for new laws. Perhaps you think the rivers of ink will reach up from the pages of the law books and hold back the hands of a lawbreaker in the moment before a law is violated.

        If you answered B, then you understand that the law does not handcuff you before you act, you understand that the law uses The Stick, to punish you if you violate the law. You understand that the law punishes you with a ticket if you are caught breaking the speed limit. You understand that the law punishes you with incarceration if you are caught with prohibited drugs, rather than prevent you from making the purchase. You understand that the law doesn't reach into your mouth and gag you before you falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you understand that it does put you on trial and punish you after you do so.

        Well Meteor Blades?

        •  Your argument is then, presumably... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...that laws are not deterrents. That the possibility of being penalized for breaking the law does not stop people from committing crimes. I will argue that laws to restrain people from both speeding and murder.

          Not everybody, obviously. And, in some cases, large numbers of people violate the law: smoking weed, for instance.  

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon May 06, 2013 at 05:42:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (65)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Environment (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Science (26)
  • Republicans (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Education (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Congress (17)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site