Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Okay. You agree that it's morally wrong to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old or to a mentally disturbed person. But your previous post indicated that you didn't think it should be LEGALLY wrong to do so. Most of English common law, and many of our present-day statutes have their basis in MORAL and RELIGIOUS laws and edicts. The crime of murder is legally so serious because the MORAL prohibition of murder has always been so.
Yes. Prior restraint is an unwise concept. I simply believe that you should be accountable for the consequences of your actions. Just as I don't believe you should have your tongue cut out if you go into a movie theater to keep you from screaming "fire" and causing people to die, but you should be held responsible if you actually harm people.
I agree with you that many of our present-day gun laws are oppressive, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. But that doesn't mean that we should allow ANYone, at ANY age, with ANY background, to own a firearm. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and others which I have neglected to mention, are all total bull*****. I know that as well as you do. But there are gun laws on the books that DO make sense. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I realize that when many politicians talk about "reasonable gun laws", what they really mean are laws that would require all guns to be melted down and made into man-hole covers. But you surely realize that there has to be some way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mental incompetants without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Yes. If the criminal or mentally incompentent person is a danger, he should be in dead or in confinement. Period. Such a measure does not infringe on the rights of peaceful (forget "law-abiding:" obeying laws and being peaceful are are not synonymous) people.
And by the way: When I spoke of the many shades of grey, I wasn't talking about "moral relativity". But I'm sure you already knew that.
You were talking about laws, taxation and the reason and morality behind their creation and implementation, were you not? Government? That pertains to morality. Likewise, there are ideas that are true to human nature, (good) and ideas that are contrary to human nature. (Goodness is lacking.) Coercion of innocent, just men is contrary to human nature. (Any true coercion is contrary to human nature, but punishment for a crime is a result of someone who has forfeited his right to a particular thing is not truly coercion, as it was accepted by the offender in the commission of the act. For example: a man who initiates aggression and tries to kill another man has forfeited his life by the action.)
Taxation is nothing else but the initiation of aggression against men who have done nothing but live in peaceful society, and voluntarily interact with other men. I forfeit nothing by living peacefully with other men. We all benefit by our peaceful interactions. When we start choosing how to spend each other's money, problems arise. When we make a claim to a "right" to do so, that is where true blindness enters into the picture.
-Sans Authoritas