dc38
Flashlight Enthusiast
In a sensible world, there would be laws for everything, and all the laws would be sensible and be followed all the time, thus removing the need for laws. In this world we live in, we do NOT have laws for everything, people do NOT always follow the laws, and laws are often nonsensical.
Based on this observation, laws would not exist without the conception of chaos. Without laws by which to determine the severity of the chaos, punishment would not exist. Without the fear and/or the provision of punishment, chaos is free to wreak its havoc upon this world, unchecked. If chaos exists, then laws must be created by which to measure the severity of the trespass, suitable punishments would then be instilled to punish chaos. It goes full loop, like a lemniscate.
The above being said, the most likely starting point of the symbiotic necessity would be the introduction of chaos. Lawmakers do their best to conceive of every possible malignant action. Interestingly enough, in this human world that we live in, we create these provisional laws under the pretense that they will be followed. Outlying chaotic individuals will be properly restrained and punished. Upon first glance, this implies that laws are good for keeping order. Upon a more meticulous inspection, however, we see that this just isn't true.
I would like to say that I am not a law breaking individual. In either am I a law abiding citizen. I am abiding by no laws, but I am not infringing upon any of them. I am not an anarchist nor a rebel with any cause or lack thereof. Since lawbreaking infers that the trespasser must be punished, the inverse should also prove true. Law abiding citizens should be justly rewarded. We all know that does NOT happen. Rather, we can see that laws are in place to punish the wicked, and possibly reward the judging party with monetary incentive. In all cases that a human has been placed on trial before a presiding jury of peers, the law has been used as a measuring tool to see just how badly the law was broken. Since we can conclude that the law is merely used as a measurement of proper punishment, what does the law do for ordinary citizens?
We have discussed that the law is excellent for restraining chaotic individuals from our society, but what else does it do? The answer should be: Absolutely nothing. The law exists solely to punish the wicked, not to judge or rule the innocent. This brings me to one particular subject that is hugely debated and is controversial: Gun control. This will encompass every possible idea that a tool HAS THE CAPACITY TO CAUSE HARM IF USED IMPROPERLY.
The first question that comes to mind is: what does gun control do, and what has it done to prevent the unfortunate events that have already occurred? Though many may argue that this question is invalid due to the nature of the future vs present vs past inference, I disagree. My rebuttal is an infantile yet enlightening observation. I can state with infinite confidence that anyone who has committed a crime has had at one point or another already resigned themselves to the breaking of the law. They have chosen to unleash chaos, and are conceptually lawbreakers. This leads us back to the purpose of gun control.
Gun control is a misnomer. It should properly be dubbed and executed as Gun Regulation.
*we shall pause here for tonight, as I'm getting tired. Will resume again tomorrow*
Based on this observation, laws would not exist without the conception of chaos. Without laws by which to determine the severity of the chaos, punishment would not exist. Without the fear and/or the provision of punishment, chaos is free to wreak its havoc upon this world, unchecked. If chaos exists, then laws must be created by which to measure the severity of the trespass, suitable punishments would then be instilled to punish chaos. It goes full loop, like a lemniscate.
The above being said, the most likely starting point of the symbiotic necessity would be the introduction of chaos. Lawmakers do their best to conceive of every possible malignant action. Interestingly enough, in this human world that we live in, we create these provisional laws under the pretense that they will be followed. Outlying chaotic individuals will be properly restrained and punished. Upon first glance, this implies that laws are good for keeping order. Upon a more meticulous inspection, however, we see that this just isn't true.
I would like to say that I am not a law breaking individual. In either am I a law abiding citizen. I am abiding by no laws, but I am not infringing upon any of them. I am not an anarchist nor a rebel with any cause or lack thereof. Since lawbreaking infers that the trespasser must be punished, the inverse should also prove true. Law abiding citizens should be justly rewarded. We all know that does NOT happen. Rather, we can see that laws are in place to punish the wicked, and possibly reward the judging party with monetary incentive. In all cases that a human has been placed on trial before a presiding jury of peers, the law has been used as a measuring tool to see just how badly the law was broken. Since we can conclude that the law is merely used as a measurement of proper punishment, what does the law do for ordinary citizens?
We have discussed that the law is excellent for restraining chaotic individuals from our society, but what else does it do? The answer should be: Absolutely nothing. The law exists solely to punish the wicked, not to judge or rule the innocent. This brings me to one particular subject that is hugely debated and is controversial: Gun control. This will encompass every possible idea that a tool HAS THE CAPACITY TO CAUSE HARM IF USED IMPROPERLY.
The first question that comes to mind is: what does gun control do, and what has it done to prevent the unfortunate events that have already occurred? Though many may argue that this question is invalid due to the nature of the future vs present vs past inference, I disagree. My rebuttal is an infantile yet enlightening observation. I can state with infinite confidence that anyone who has committed a crime has had at one point or another already resigned themselves to the breaking of the law. They have chosen to unleash chaos, and are conceptually lawbreakers. This leads us back to the purpose of gun control.
Gun control is a misnomer. It should properly be dubbed and executed as Gun Regulation.
*we shall pause here for tonight, as I'm getting tired. Will resume again tomorrow*
