If I were to call you a mother ****er, I'd at least have the balls not to lie about it afterwords.
Urban Dictionary: amf
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
So let's see. AdamT is arguing that no charges filed = no crime committed. By that logic the less than 1 percent of attempt to purchase violation prosecutions means that more than 1 percent of people attempting to buy a firearm after legal prohibition have not broken the law. In fact they have broken the law by attempting to purchase, usually when a prosecution occurs it is due to other factors such as the person being either a suspect in other crimes, or a perjury, etc. and it is not worth the time or cost to go after everyone who violates this. This doesn't mean they haven't broken the law of course, just that they weren't prosecuted. However using AdamT's logic Bloomberg didn't break all of these laws for the same reason, yet he has broken multiple federal gun and jurisdictional laws and quite possibly a few privacy laws as well. He isn't being prosecuted but has indeed BROKEN THE LAW.
I guess all those people cleared by DNA evidence in the appeals process then by AdamT's logic have broken the law since they were prosecuted, I mean, they were convicted of a crime in court and they are on public record, evidence be damned it's the charges that count in modern logic.
Or AdamT, does logic only pertain to things you think are proper. This sounds like a case of structuring your argument to be favorable to ideology rather than the actual facts of the case, the law be damned. As a professed legal student this is disturbing to see, you are to uphold the law, not use a "by any means necessary" approach to it.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.