By Nancy Carlton
To be a criminal, by definition, is to be a lawbreaker. If a murderer breaks only one law in the commission of his felony, he is to the same degree a criminal as the man or woman who breaks 100 laws committing the murder.
To a rational lawmaker, then, the answer is not to make more laws, but to enforce the laws on the books, and to see to it that justice is done when someone breaks the law.
However, this "seeing to it that justice is done when someone breaks the law" assumes that the law was a just law. Today our laws and regulations are so plentiful and complicated that each of us becomes a "de facto" criminal during the course of a normal day. We arenâ€™t even aware of it, usually.
The recent spate of school shootings would have been just as illegal if the only law prohibiting such acts was the one found in The Holy Bible: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
No matter how many other legal barriers we erect in the pathway of a criminal on his way toward his victims, we wonâ€™t end crime. Criminals donâ€™t obey laws.
Laws, regulations, statutes - all these are useful tools for keeping a lot of lawyers employed, and many of them do serve to keep a peaceful society - but only if they are followed.
We all know that schools are "Gun-free Zones". They all have signs posted out front that say so.
These signs are good for two things to a criminal:
1. A good laugh.
2. Target practice.
Sorry, but no sign ever kept a mass-murderer from committing his crimes.
These few paragraphs we just covered are simple logic to us who live in the "real world", so why do the elites in Washington, D.C. think that the answer to the crime problem is more laws?
I think that they actually know that more gun laws wonâ€™t stop gun crimes, and they are fine with that, because their true objective is more control over the citizens - not to disarm only the criminals.
What if we did live in a world where we could just pass a law, post a sign making the public aware of the law, and then nobody would break that law? Wow! There would be no school shootings, because the sign says "Gun-free zone"!
There would be no speeders, because the sign says "Speed Limit 70"!
We could effectively end the War on Drugs by posting signs that say "Crack Cocaine Prohibited by Law". Voila! No more Crack!
The "Fine for Littering" signs along our freeways would keep our interstate highways pristine!
Say, I have an idea - how about "Maximum Daily Caloric Intake 2,000" placed on neat little signs in every restaurant, with the Federal Statute number listed at the bottom. If laws really work like lawmakers pretend they do, the War on Obesity is over, and the skinny side won!
Of course, this digression into the absurd is merely an illustration of my point. We all know that merely enacting more laws wonâ€™t keep criminals from transgressing. Au contraire, it will create more criminals.
Let me take a moment here to say how happy I am to be back in The Saline Courier. I will be a regular on Wednesdays once again, and I am very much looking forward to the lively discourse that comes from an exchange of viewpoints in a (so far, somewhat) free country, and I thank the folks at the Courier for facilitating this.
Please feel free to contact me at Carltons@Reagan.com and give me your take on my output, or your ideas for columns youâ€™d like to see.